On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 03:34:08PM +0200, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Alan Cox <a...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 2015-04-17 at 16:59 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 02:31:49PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > >> > On Fri, 2015-04-17 at 11:20 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > >> > > Actually, my patch seems like a good idea to me but it's one of those > >> > > things that someone should probably test. Unless someone can test > >> > > goldfish on a 32 bit system with 64 bit dma addresses > >> > > >> > No such "system" exists. > >> > >> I don't understand. We definitely can have 64bit dma addresses on > >> x86_32. > > > > > > Yes but no actual Goldfish environment is built that way > Isn't this a simpler fix?
I still think my fix is cleanest even though dma_addr_t and size_t are always the same. It just means that we can commit it without worrying about testing. regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
