On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 11:46:40AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> Hi Borislav,
>
>
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:01:21PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > > Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> > > >> +#define DMA_64BIT_MASKDMA_BIT_MASK(64)
> > > >
Hi Borislav,
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:01:21PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> > >> +#define DMA_64BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(64)
> > >>
> > >
> > > This one does not do what you mean. You need an explicit mask or a
>
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:01:21PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> >> +#define DMA_64BIT_MASKDMA_BIT_MASK(64)
> >>
> >
> > This one does not do what you mean. You need an explicit mask or a
> > ~0ULL here.
>
> Yeah, I was just about to comment on it. Its poss
Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
>> +#define DMA_64BIT_MASK DMA_BIT_MASK(64)
>>
>
> This one does not do what you mean. You need an explicit mask or a
> ~0ULL here.
Yeah, I was just about to comment on it. Its possible the compiler
might decide to shift by x%64 = 0.
J
-
To unsubscribe from
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:29:19AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> These patches remove redundant DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions across two drivers.
> In this version of the patches, the computation of the bitmasks is done by
> the compiler.
>
> Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
These patches remove redundant DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions across two drivers.
In this version of the patches, the computation of the bitmasks is done by
the compiler.
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
Index: 23-rc6/include/linux/dma-
6 matches
Mail list logo