[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F33DC0F.7090704@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:45:35 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Hitoshi Mitake <h.mitake@...il.com>
CC: mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Kashyap Desai <Kashyap.Desai@....com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Ravi Anand <ravi.anand@...gic.com>,
Vikas Chaudhary <vikas.chaudhary@...gic.com>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
Jason Uhlenkott <juhlenko@...mai.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...allels.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Roland Dreier <roland@...estorage.com>,
James Bottomley <jbottomley@...allels.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] asm-generic: architecture independent readq/writeq for
32bit environment
On 02/09/2012 05:37 AM, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:47, hpanvin@...il.com<hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>> Should be volatile u64 * not volatile void *...
>
> Is this the type of parameters?
> The parameters of atomic readq/writeq defined in arch/x86/include/asm/io.h
> are defined as void *. I think that atomic readq/writeq and non-atomic
> readq/writeq
> should have same typed parameters and return values.
>
That sounds like a bug.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists