[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAP6odjjPAo+y_oZzBVFbOPVn=KkX-Oqycvkjo4CdNuUzNN4zkA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:42:45 -0700
From: Grant Grundler <grantgrundler@...il.com>
To: Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa.takuya@....ntt.co.jp>
Cc: grundler@...isc-linux.org, bhutchings@...arflare.com,
arnd@...db.de, avi@...hat.com, mtosatti@...hat.com,
linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, takuya.yoshikawa@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip: Add tulip_ prefix to set_bit_le()
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Takuya Yoshikawa
<yoshikawa.takuya@....ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> From: Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa.takuya@....ntt.co.jp>
>
> Needed to introduce generic set_bit_le().
>
> Signed-off-by: Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa.takuya@....ntt.co.jp>
> Cc: Grant Grundler <grundler@...isc-linux.org>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/de2104x.c | 7 +++----
> drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/tulip_core.c | 7 +++----
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/de2104x.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/de2104x.c
> index 61cc093..e635f1a 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/de2104x.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/de2104x.c
> @@ -661,8 +661,7 @@ static netdev_tx_t de_start_xmit (struct sk_buff *skb,
> new frame, not around filling de->setup_frame. This is non-deterministic
> when re-entered but still correct. */
>
> -#undef set_bit_le
> -#define set_bit_le(i,p) do { ((char *)(p))[(i)/8] |= (1<<((i)%8)); } while(0)
> +#define tulip_set_bit_le(i,p) do { ((char *)(p))[(i)/8] |= (1<<((i)%8)); } while(0)
I am ok with this patch going in. This code predates the clear
understanding of bit_ops that we have now and will continue to work
with this patch.
If you have time to follow Arnd's suggestion to use __set_bit_le()
(and removing both local definitions), that would be better. Either
way:
Acked-by: Grant Grundler <grundler@...isc-linux.org>
thanks!
grant
>
> static void build_setup_frame_hash(u16 *setup_frm, struct net_device *dev)
> {
> @@ -673,12 +672,12 @@ static void build_setup_frame_hash(u16 *setup_frm, struct net_device *dev)
> u16 *eaddrs;
>
> memset(hash_table, 0, sizeof(hash_table));
> - set_bit_le(255, hash_table); /* Broadcast entry */
> + tulip_set_bit_le(255, hash_table); /* Broadcast entry */
> /* This should work on big-endian machines as well. */
> netdev_for_each_mc_addr(ha, dev) {
> int index = ether_crc_le(ETH_ALEN, ha->addr) & 0x1ff;
>
> - set_bit_le(index, hash_table);
> + tulip_set_bit_le(index, hash_table);
> }
>
> for (i = 0; i < 32; i++) {
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/tulip_core.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/tulip_core.c
> index c4f37ac..3a1ebd02 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/tulip_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/dec/tulip/tulip_core.c
> @@ -1010,8 +1010,7 @@ static int private_ioctl (struct net_device *dev, struct ifreq *rq, int cmd)
> new frame, not around filling tp->setup_frame. This is non-deterministic
> when re-entered but still correct. */
>
> -#undef set_bit_le
> -#define set_bit_le(i,p) do { ((char *)(p))[(i)/8] |= (1<<((i)%8)); } while(0)
> +#define tulip_set_bit_le(i,p) do { ((char *)(p))[(i)/8] |= (1<<((i)%8)); } while(0)
>
> static void build_setup_frame_hash(u16 *setup_frm, struct net_device *dev)
> {
> @@ -1022,12 +1021,12 @@ static void build_setup_frame_hash(u16 *setup_frm, struct net_device *dev)
> u16 *eaddrs;
>
> memset(hash_table, 0, sizeof(hash_table));
> - set_bit_le(255, hash_table); /* Broadcast entry */
> + tulip_set_bit_le(255, hash_table); /* Broadcast entry */
> /* This should work on big-endian machines as well. */
> netdev_for_each_mc_addr(ha, dev) {
> int index = ether_crc_le(ETH_ALEN, ha->addr) & 0x1ff;
>
> - set_bit_le(index, hash_table);
> + tulip_set_bit_le(index, hash_table);
> }
> for (i = 0; i < 32; i++) {
> *setup_frm++ = hash_table[i];
> --
> 1.7.5.4
>
--
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