netdev - Re: [git patches] net driver fixes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 2 Jul 2007 15:15:00 -0700
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
Cc:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, ionut@...columbia.edu,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	maximilian attems <max@...o.at>
Subject: Re: [git patches] net driver fixes

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 00:13:29 +0200
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 10:54:01AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >...
> > maximilian attems (1):
> >       starfire list alpha as 64 bit arch
> >...
> > --- a/drivers/net/starfire.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/starfire.c
> > @@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ static int full_duplex[MAX_UNITS] = {0, };
> >   * This SUCKS.
> >   * We need a much better method to determine if dma_addr_t is 64-bit.
> >   */
> > -#if (defined(__i386__) && defined(CONFIG_HIGHMEM64G)) || defined(__x86_64__) || defined (__ia64__) || defined(__mips64__) || (defined(__mips__) && defined(CONFIG_HIGHMEM) && defined(CONFIG_64BIT_PHYS_ADDR))
> > +#if (defined(__i386__) && defined(CONFIG_HIGHMEM64G)) || defined(__x86_64__) || defined (__ia64__) || defined(__alpha__) || defined(__mips64__) || (defined(__mips__) && defined(CONFIG_HIGHMEM) && defined(CONFIG_64BIT_PHYS_ADDR))
> >  /* 64-bit dma_addr_t */
> >  #define ADDR_64BITS	/* This chip uses 64 bit addresses. */
> >  #define netdrv_addr_t u64
> >...
> 
> The patch is correct and definitely the best solution at this time of 
> the 2.6.22 development cycle.
> 
> But the comment in the context exactly matches what I thought when
> I saw this code...
> 
> Does anyone have a suggestion how to do this better?
> 
> cu
> Adrian
> 

Yeah, write code that handles it in compiler. Like:
	if (sizeof(dma_addr_t) > sizeof(u32)) {
		do something...
	}
That means that it gets checked even if optimizer removes it as
unneeded.

-- 
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html