Ar Maw, 2006-10-24 am 12:13 -0700, ysgrifennodd Roland Dreier:
> 1) Is this something that should be fixed in the driver? The PCI
> spec allows MMIO cycles to start before an earlier config cycle
> completed, but do we want to expose this fact to drivers? Would
> it be better for ia6
On Maw, 2006-05-02 at 07:24 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> But see my earlier mail to Arjan about RDMA -- what address can a
> protocol (eg SRP initiator) put in a message that the other side will
> use to initiate a remote DMA operation? It seems to me it has to be a
> bus address, and that means
On Sul, 2005-12-18 at 04:27 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Robert Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Any chance we could get these moved into the x86_64 arch directory,
> > then? We have to do double-word copies, or our chip gets unhappy.
>
> Standard memcpy will do double word copies if ever
On Sad, 2005-12-17 at 14:54 -0800, Robert Walsh wrote:
> Agreed about the assembler, but one way or the other, x86_64 is the only
> arch we support.
If you need a quad only copy then put it into asm/string.h (asm/io.h if
its operating on I/O space I guess) or somewhere similar as a generic
functio
On Sad, 2004-10-09 at 22:11, Roland Dreier wrote:
> I guess my point was not that the bluetooth stack is somehow
> questionable, but rather that the IP policies of a standards bodies
> are really not a good reason to keep code out of the kernel. If
> someone can name one patent that the IB driver
