Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 02:00:50PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:43:54 -0700
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > Now that we have DMA_BIT_MASK(), these macros are pointless.
> > >
> >
> > Except, unfortunately, DMA_64BIT_MASK. I guess we could special case
> > it, assuming this works in all the contexts the macro is used in (ie,
> > compile-time constant?):
> >
> > #define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) (((n) == 64) ? ~0ULL : ((1ULL<<(n))-1))
> >
>
> doh. Thanks.
>
> --- a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h~stop-using-dma_xxbit_mask-fix
> +++ a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
> @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ enum dma_data_direction {
> DMA_NONE = 3,
> };
>
> -#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) ((1ULL<<(n))-1)
> +#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) (((n) == 64) ? ~0ULL : ((1ULL<<(n))-1))
>
> /*
> * NOTE: do not use the below macros in new code and do not add new
> definitions
> @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ enum dma_data_direction {
> *
> * Instead, just open-code DMA_BIT_MASK(n) within your driver
> */
> -#define DMA_64BIT_MASK (~0ULL)
> +#define DMA_64BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(64)
> #define DMA_48BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(48)
> #define DMA_47BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(47)
> #define DMA_40BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(40)
>
Hi and sorry for the late reply. IMHO, this solution is the most concise and
still
clear enough a macro to understand what it does after a quick scan (unlike
uglies like IO_COND() in lib/iomap.c¹, :)) And, as a next step, we probably
should do
perl -pi -e 's/DMA_(..)BIT_MASK/DMA_BIT_MASK($1)/g' *
after removing the #define DMA_..BIT_MASK defines in
/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
and the other two headers in the original patch after the x86 merge.
Current git (9f34073b4e54ad58541e0e2b4a87f4f6c1460e21) contains about 394
instances of usage of those macros, including the #definitions.
¹ this is not a flame!
--
Regards/Gruß,
Boris.
-
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/
Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 02:23:41PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > or you could take advantage of the macros in kernel.h and write that > > as: > > > > +#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) (((n) == 64) ? ULLONG_MAX : ((1ULL<<(n))-1)) > > > > But that's a more indirect way of expressing "I want all 1's". ... and ULLONG_MAX _is_ (~0ULL). -- Regards/Gruß, Boris. - 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/
Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 02:23:41PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: Robert P. J. Day wrote: or you could take advantage of the macros in kernel.h and write that as: +#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) (((n) == 64) ? ULLONG_MAX : ((1ULL(n))-1)) But that's a more indirect way of expressing I want all 1's. ... and ULLONG_MAX _is_ (~0ULL). -- Regards/Gruß, Boris. - 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/
Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 02:00:50PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:43:54 -0700
Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
From: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now that we have DMA_BIT_MASK(), these macros are pointless.
Except, unfortunately, DMA_64BIT_MASK. I guess we could special case
it, assuming this works in all the contexts the macro is used in (ie,
compile-time constant?):
#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) (((n) == 64) ? ~0ULL : ((1ULL(n))-1))
doh. Thanks.
--- a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h~stop-using-dma_xxbit_mask-fix
+++ a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ enum dma_data_direction {
DMA_NONE = 3,
};
-#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) ((1ULL(n))-1)
+#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) (((n) == 64) ? ~0ULL : ((1ULL(n))-1))
/*
* NOTE: do not use the below macros in new code and do not add new
definitions
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ enum dma_data_direction {
*
* Instead, just open-code DMA_BIT_MASK(n) within your driver
*/
-#define DMA_64BIT_MASK (~0ULL)
+#define DMA_64BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(64)
#define DMA_48BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(48)
#define DMA_47BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(47)
#define DMA_40BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(40)
Hi and sorry for the late reply. IMHO, this solution is the most concise and
still
clear enough a macro to understand what it does after a quick scan (unlike
uglies like IO_COND() in lib/iomap.c¹, :)) And, as a next step, we probably
should do
perl -pi -e 's/DMA_(..)BIT_MASK/DMA_BIT_MASK($1)/g' *
after removing the #define DMA_..BIT_MASK defines in
/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
and the other two headers in the original patch after the x86 merge.
Current git (9f34073b4e54ad58541e0e2b4a87f4f6c1460e21) contains about 394
instances of usage of those macros, including the #definitions.
¹ this is not a flame!
--
Regards/Gruß,
Boris.
-
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/
Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
Andrew Morton wrote: > Well yes, but DMA_BIT_MASK(0) invokes undefined behaviour, generates a > compiler warning and evaluates to 0x (with my setup). > > That won't be a problem in practice, but it is strictly wrong and doesn't set > a good exmaple for the children ;) > It's interesting that it doesn't seem to be possible to define this without invoking some undefined behaviour. But a device that supports 0 bits of DMA address probably isn't terribly concerned about this - it's certainly better than making 64 bit masks warty. J - 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/
Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:28:45 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andreas Schwab wrote: > > #define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) ((u64)-1 >> (64 - (n))) > > > > Yeah, that's cleaner. > Well yes, but DMA_BIT_MASK(0) invokes undefined behaviour, generates a compiler warning and evaluates to 0x (with my setup). That won't be a problem in practice, but it is strictly wrong and doesn't set a good exmaple for the children ;) - 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/
Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
Andreas Schwab wrote: > #define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) ((u64)-1 >> (64 - (n))) > Yeah, that's cleaner. J - 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/
Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
"Robert P. J. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> -#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) ((1ULL<<(n))-1) >> +#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) (((n) == 64) ? ~0ULL : ((1ULL<<(n))-1)) > > or you could take advantage of the macros in kernel.h and write that > as: > > +#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) (((n) == 64) ? ULLONG_MAX : ((1ULL<<(n))-1)) #define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) ((u64)-1 >> (64 - (n))) Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED] SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different." - 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/
Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
Robert P. J. Day wrote: > or you could take advantage of the macros in kernel.h and write that > as: > > +#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) (((n) == 64) ? ULLONG_MAX : ((1ULL<<(n))-1)) > But that's a more indirect way of expressing "I want all 1's". J - 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/
Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > -#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) ((1ULL<<(n))-1) > +#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) (((n) == 64) ? ~0ULL : ((1ULL<<(n))-1)) or you could take advantage of the macros in kernel.h and write that as: +#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) (((n) == 64) ? ULLONG_MAX : ((1ULL<<(n))-1)) rday -- Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca - 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/
Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:43:54 -0700
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Now that we have DMA_BIT_MASK(), these macros are pointless.
> >
>
> Except, unfortunately, DMA_64BIT_MASK. I guess we could special case
> it, assuming this works in all the contexts the macro is used in (ie,
> compile-time constant?):
>
> #define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) (((n) == 64) ? ~0ULL : ((1ULL<<(n))-1))
>
doh. Thanks.
--- a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h~stop-using-dma_xxbit_mask-fix
+++ a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ enum dma_data_direction {
DMA_NONE = 3,
};
-#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n)((1ULL<<(n))-1)
+#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n)(((n) == 64) ? ~0ULL : ((1ULL<<(n))-1))
/*
* NOTE: do not use the below macros in new code and do not add new definitions
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ enum dma_data_direction {
*
* Instead, just open-code DMA_BIT_MASK(n) within your driver
*/
-#define DMA_64BIT_MASK (~0ULL)
+#define DMA_64BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(64)
#define DMA_48BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(48)
#define DMA_47BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(47)
#define DMA_40BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(40)
_
it's irksome that there doesn't seem to be a neater way of doing
this, until they give us unsigned long long longs.
-
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/
Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
Andrew Morton wrote: > From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Now that we have DMA_BIT_MASK(), these macros are pointless. > Except, unfortunately, DMA_64BIT_MASK. I guess we could special case it, assuming this works in all the contexts the macro is used in (ie, compile-time constant?): #define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) (((n) == 64) ? ~0ULL : ((1ULL<<(n))-1)) J - 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/
Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:46:47 +0200
Borislav Petkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These patches remove redundant DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions across two
> drivers. The computation of the majority of the bitmasks is done by the
> compiler. The initial split of the patch touching each a different file got
> removed due to possible git bisect breakage.
>
> Andrew, can you please apply this patch for it touches drivers maintained by
> different people and i there might be responsibility issues, imho.
>
> Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> drivers/net/netxen/netxen_nic_main.c |3 ---
> drivers/scsi/gdth.c |5 -
> include/linux/dma-mapping.h | 23 +--
> 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> ...
>
> -#define DMA_64BIT_MASK 0xULL
> -#define DMA_48BIT_MASK 0xULL
> -#define DMA_40BIT_MASK 0x00ffULL
> -#define DMA_39BIT_MASK 0x007fULL
> -#define DMA_32BIT_MASK 0xULL
> -#define DMA_31BIT_MASK 0x7fffULL
> -#define DMA_30BIT_MASK 0x3fffULL
> -#define DMA_29BIT_MASK 0x1fffULL
> -#define DMA_28BIT_MASK 0x0fffULL
> -#define DMA_24BIT_MASK 0x00ffULL
> +#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) ((1ULL<<(n))-1)
> +
> +#define DMA_64BIT_MASK (~0ULL)
> +#define DMA_48BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(48)
> +#define DMA_40BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(40)
> +#define DMA_39BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(39)
> +#define DMA_35BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(35)
> +#define DMA_32BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(32)
> +#define DMA_31BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(31)
> +#define DMA_30BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(30)
> +#define DMA_29BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(29)
> +#define DMA_28BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(28)
> +#define DMA_24BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(24)
>
Now that you've done this, those DMA_xxBIT_MASK macros are pointless and
stupid and we should aim to get rid of them.
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Now that we have DMA_BIT_MASK(), these macros are pointless.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
include/linux/dma-mapping.h |6 ++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff -puN include/linux/dma-mapping.h~a include/linux/dma-mapping.h
--- a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h~a
+++ a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
@@ -15,6 +15,12 @@ enum dma_data_direction {
#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n)((1ULL<<(n))-1)
+/*
+ * NOTE: do not use the below macros in new code and do not add new definitions
+ * here.
+ *
+ * Instead, just open-code DMA_BIT_MASK(n) within your driver
+ */
#define DMA_64BIT_MASK (~0ULL)
#define DMA_48BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(48)
#define DMA_47BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(47)
_
-
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/
Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:46:47 +0200
Borislav Petkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These patches remove redundant DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions across two
drivers. The computation of the majority of the bitmasks is done by the
compiler. The initial split of the patch touching each a different file got
removed due to possible git bisect breakage.
Andrew, can you please apply this patch for it touches drivers maintained by
different people and i there might be responsibility issues, imho.
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
drivers/net/netxen/netxen_nic_main.c |3 ---
drivers/scsi/gdth.c |5 -
include/linux/dma-mapping.h | 23 +--
3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
...
-#define DMA_64BIT_MASK 0xULL
-#define DMA_48BIT_MASK 0xULL
-#define DMA_40BIT_MASK 0x00ffULL
-#define DMA_39BIT_MASK 0x007fULL
-#define DMA_32BIT_MASK 0xULL
-#define DMA_31BIT_MASK 0x7fffULL
-#define DMA_30BIT_MASK 0x3fffULL
-#define DMA_29BIT_MASK 0x1fffULL
-#define DMA_28BIT_MASK 0x0fffULL
-#define DMA_24BIT_MASK 0x00ffULL
+#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) ((1ULL(n))-1)
+
+#define DMA_64BIT_MASK (~0ULL)
+#define DMA_48BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(48)
+#define DMA_40BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(40)
+#define DMA_39BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(39)
+#define DMA_35BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(35)
+#define DMA_32BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(32)
+#define DMA_31BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(31)
+#define DMA_30BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(30)
+#define DMA_29BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(29)
+#define DMA_28BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(28)
+#define DMA_24BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(24)
Now that you've done this, those DMA_xxBIT_MASK macros are pointless and
stupid and we should aim to get rid of them.
From: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now that we have DMA_BIT_MASK(), these macros are pointless.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
include/linux/dma-mapping.h |6 ++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff -puN include/linux/dma-mapping.h~a include/linux/dma-mapping.h
--- a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h~a
+++ a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
@@ -15,6 +15,12 @@ enum dma_data_direction {
#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n)((1ULL(n))-1)
+/*
+ * NOTE: do not use the below macros in new code and do not add new definitions
+ * here.
+ *
+ * Instead, just open-code DMA_BIT_MASK(n) within your driver
+ */
#define DMA_64BIT_MASK (~0ULL)
#define DMA_48BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(48)
#define DMA_47BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(47)
_
-
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/
Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
Andrew Morton wrote: From: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now that we have DMA_BIT_MASK(), these macros are pointless. Except, unfortunately, DMA_64BIT_MASK. I guess we could special case it, assuming this works in all the contexts the macro is used in (ie, compile-time constant?): #define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) (((n) == 64) ? ~0ULL : ((1ULL(n))-1)) J - 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/
Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:43:54 -0700
Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
From: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now that we have DMA_BIT_MASK(), these macros are pointless.
Except, unfortunately, DMA_64BIT_MASK. I guess we could special case
it, assuming this works in all the contexts the macro is used in (ie,
compile-time constant?):
#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) (((n) == 64) ? ~0ULL : ((1ULL(n))-1))
doh. Thanks.
--- a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h~stop-using-dma_xxbit_mask-fix
+++ a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ enum dma_data_direction {
DMA_NONE = 3,
};
-#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n)((1ULL(n))-1)
+#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n)(((n) == 64) ? ~0ULL : ((1ULL(n))-1))
/*
* NOTE: do not use the below macros in new code and do not add new definitions
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ enum dma_data_direction {
*
* Instead, just open-code DMA_BIT_MASK(n) within your driver
*/
-#define DMA_64BIT_MASK (~0ULL)
+#define DMA_64BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(64)
#define DMA_48BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(48)
#define DMA_47BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(47)
#define DMA_40BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(40)
_
it's irksome that there doesn't seem to be a neater way of doing
this, until they give us unsigned long long longs.
-
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/
Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: -#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) ((1ULL(n))-1) +#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) (((n) == 64) ? ~0ULL : ((1ULL(n))-1)) or you could take advantage of the macros in kernel.h and write that as: +#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) (((n) == 64) ? ULLONG_MAX : ((1ULL(n))-1)) rday -- Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca - 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/
Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
Robert P. J. Day wrote: or you could take advantage of the macros in kernel.h and write that as: +#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) (((n) == 64) ? ULLONG_MAX : ((1ULL(n))-1)) But that's a more indirect way of expressing I want all 1's. J - 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/
Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: -#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) ((1ULL(n))-1) +#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) (((n) == 64) ? ~0ULL : ((1ULL(n))-1)) or you could take advantage of the macros in kernel.h and write that as: +#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) (((n) == 64) ? ULLONG_MAX : ((1ULL(n))-1)) #define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) ((u64)-1 (64 - (n))) Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED] SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 And now for something completely different. - 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/
Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
Andreas Schwab wrote: #define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) ((u64)-1 (64 - (n))) Yeah, that's cleaner. J - 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/
Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:28:45 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Schwab wrote: #define DMA_BIT_MASK(n) ((u64)-1 (64 - (n))) Yeah, that's cleaner. Well yes, but DMA_BIT_MASK(0) invokes undefined behaviour, generates a compiler warning and evaluates to 0x (with my setup). That won't be a problem in practice, but it is strictly wrong and doesn't set a good exmaple for the children ;) - 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/
Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
Andrew Morton wrote: Well yes, but DMA_BIT_MASK(0) invokes undefined behaviour, generates a compiler warning and evaluates to 0x (with my setup). That won't be a problem in practice, but it is strictly wrong and doesn't set a good exmaple for the children ;) It's interesting that it doesn't seem to be possible to define this without invoking some undefined behaviour. But a device that supports 0 bits of DMA address probably isn't terribly concerned about this - it's certainly better than making 64 bit masks warty. J - 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/
Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > These patches remove redundant DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions across two > drivers. The computation of the majority of the bitmasks is done by the > compiler. The initial split of the patch touching each a different file got > removed due to possible git bisect breakage. > > Andrew, can you please apply this patch for it touches drivers maintained by > different people and i there might be responsibility issues, imho. > > Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thanks, Borislav. Reviewed-by: Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 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/
Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Borislav Petkov wrote: These patches remove redundant DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions across two drivers. The computation of the majority of the bitmasks is done by the compiler. The initial split of the patch touching each a different file got removed due to possible git bisect breakage. Andrew, can you please apply this patch for it touches drivers maintained by different people and i there might be responsibility issues, imho. Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Borislav. Reviewed-by: Satyam Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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/
[PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
These patches remove redundant DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions across two
drivers. The computation of the majority of the bitmasks is done by the
compiler. The initial split of the patch touching each a different file got
removed due to possible git bisect breakage.
Andrew, can you please apply this patch for it touches drivers maintained by
different people and i there might be responsibility issues, imho.
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
drivers/net/netxen/netxen_nic_main.c |3 ---
drivers/scsi/gdth.c |5 -
include/linux/dma-mapping.h | 23 +--
3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
--
Index: b/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
===
--- a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h 2007-09-18 21:12:30.0 +0200
+++ b/include/linux/dma-mapping.h 2007-09-18 21:13:17.0 +0200
@@ -13,16 +13,19 @@
DMA_NONE = 3,
};
-#define DMA_64BIT_MASK 0xULL
-#define DMA_48BIT_MASK 0xULL
-#define DMA_40BIT_MASK 0x00ffULL
-#define DMA_39BIT_MASK 0x007fULL
-#define DMA_32BIT_MASK 0xULL
-#define DMA_31BIT_MASK 0x7fffULL
-#define DMA_30BIT_MASK 0x3fffULL
-#define DMA_29BIT_MASK 0x1fffULL
-#define DMA_28BIT_MASK 0x0fffULL
-#define DMA_24BIT_MASK 0x00ffULL
+#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n)((1ULL<<(n))-1)
+
+#define DMA_64BIT_MASK (~0ULL)
+#define DMA_48BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(48)
+#define DMA_40BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(40)
+#define DMA_39BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(39)
+#define DMA_35BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(35)
+#define DMA_32BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(32)
+#define DMA_31BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(31)
+#define DMA_30BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(30)
+#define DMA_29BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(29)
+#define DMA_28BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(28)
+#define DMA_24BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(24)
static inline int valid_dma_direction(int dma_direction)
{
Index: b/drivers/net/netxen/netxen_nic_main.c
===
--- a/drivers/net/netxen/netxen_nic_main.c 2007-09-18 21:13:06.0
+0200
+++ b/drivers/net/netxen/netxen_nic_main.c 2007-09-18 21:13:46.0
+0200
@@ -54,9 +54,6 @@
#define NETXEN_ADAPTER_UP_MAGIC 777
#define NETXEN_NIC_PEG_TUNE 0
-#define DMA_32BIT_MASK 0xULL
-#define DMA_35BIT_MASK 0x0007ULL
-
/* Local functions to NetXen NIC driver */
static int __devinit netxen_nic_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
const struct pci_device_id *ent);
Index: b/drivers/scsi/gdth.c
===
--- a/drivers/scsi/gdth.c 2007-09-18 21:12:43.0 +0200
+++ b/drivers/scsi/gdth.c 2007-09-18 21:14:06.0 +0200
@@ -392,12 +392,7 @@
#include
#include
#include
-#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= KERNEL_VERSION(2,6,6)
#include
-#else
-#define DMA_32BIT_MASK 0xULL
-#define DMA_64BIT_MASK 0xULL
-#endif
#ifdef GDTH_RTC
#include
--
Regards/Gruß,
Boris.
-
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/
[PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
These patches remove redundant DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions across two
drivers. The computation of the majority of the bitmasks is done by the
compiler. The initial split of the patch touching each a different file got
removed due to possible git bisect breakage.
Andrew, can you please apply this patch for it touches drivers maintained by
different people and i there might be responsibility issues, imho.
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
drivers/net/netxen/netxen_nic_main.c |3 ---
drivers/scsi/gdth.c |5 -
include/linux/dma-mapping.h | 23 +--
3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
--
Index: b/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
===
--- a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h 2007-09-18 21:12:30.0 +0200
+++ b/include/linux/dma-mapping.h 2007-09-18 21:13:17.0 +0200
@@ -13,16 +13,19 @@
DMA_NONE = 3,
};
-#define DMA_64BIT_MASK 0xULL
-#define DMA_48BIT_MASK 0xULL
-#define DMA_40BIT_MASK 0x00ffULL
-#define DMA_39BIT_MASK 0x007fULL
-#define DMA_32BIT_MASK 0xULL
-#define DMA_31BIT_MASK 0x7fffULL
-#define DMA_30BIT_MASK 0x3fffULL
-#define DMA_29BIT_MASK 0x1fffULL
-#define DMA_28BIT_MASK 0x0fffULL
-#define DMA_24BIT_MASK 0x00ffULL
+#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n)((1ULL(n))-1)
+
+#define DMA_64BIT_MASK (~0ULL)
+#define DMA_48BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(48)
+#define DMA_40BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(40)
+#define DMA_39BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(39)
+#define DMA_35BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(35)
+#define DMA_32BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(32)
+#define DMA_31BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(31)
+#define DMA_30BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(30)
+#define DMA_29BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(29)
+#define DMA_28BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(28)
+#define DMA_24BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(24)
static inline int valid_dma_direction(int dma_direction)
{
Index: b/drivers/net/netxen/netxen_nic_main.c
===
--- a/drivers/net/netxen/netxen_nic_main.c 2007-09-18 21:13:06.0
+0200
+++ b/drivers/net/netxen/netxen_nic_main.c 2007-09-18 21:13:46.0
+0200
@@ -54,9 +54,6 @@
#define NETXEN_ADAPTER_UP_MAGIC 777
#define NETXEN_NIC_PEG_TUNE 0
-#define DMA_32BIT_MASK 0xULL
-#define DMA_35BIT_MASK 0x0007ULL
-
/* Local functions to NetXen NIC driver */
static int __devinit netxen_nic_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
const struct pci_device_id *ent);
Index: b/drivers/scsi/gdth.c
===
--- a/drivers/scsi/gdth.c 2007-09-18 21:12:43.0 +0200
+++ b/drivers/scsi/gdth.c 2007-09-18 21:14:06.0 +0200
@@ -392,12 +392,7 @@
#include linux/proc_fs.h
#include linux/time.h
#include linux/timer.h
-#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE = KERNEL_VERSION(2,6,6)
#include linux/dma-mapping.h
-#else
-#define DMA_32BIT_MASK 0xULL
-#define DMA_64BIT_MASK 0xULL
-#endif
#ifdef GDTH_RTC
#include linux/mc146818rtc.h
--
Regards/Gruß,
Boris.
-
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/
