On Friday 24 July 2015 08:02 PM, Kalle Valo wrote: > Vineet Gupta <[email protected]> writes: > >> > There's already a generic implementation so use that instead. >> > --- >> > I'm not sure if the driver usage of atomic_or?() is correct in terms of >> > storage size of @val for 64 bit arches. >> > >> > Assuming LP64 programming model for linux on say x86_64: atomic_or() >> > callers in this driver use long (sana 64 bit) storage and pass it to >> > atomic_orr/atomic_or which downcasts it to 32 bits. Is that OK ? >> > --- >> > Cc: Brett Rudley <[email protected]> >> > Cc: Arend van Spriel <[email protected]> >> > Cc: "Franky (Zhenhui) Lin" <[email protected]> >> > Cc: Hante Meuleman <[email protected]> >> > Cc: Kalle Valo <[email protected]> >> > Cc: Pieter-Paul Giesberts <[email protected]> >> > Cc: Daniel Kim <[email protected]> >> > Cc: [email protected] >> > Cc: [email protected] >> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> >> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> >> > Cc: [email protected] >> > Cc: [email protected] >> > Cc: [email protected] >> > Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <[email protected]> >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <[email protected]> > What's the plan with this patch? Should I take it to my > wireless-drivers-next tree or will someone else take it?
Per last discussion on this topic, Arend wanted to discuss abt this with Hante. I'm not taking it anyways so feel free to pick it up if you want ! -Vineet -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
