[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKwvOd=ZjbN+3ObaOXYcQBa6e_2UqzALeOikruR=9Sn1Rb65Uw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 11:02:36 -0800
From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>
Cc: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tbogendoerfer@...e.de>,
Michael Reed <mdr@....com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: qla1280: Fix a use of QLA_64BIT_PTR
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 10:58 AM Nathan Chancellor
<natechancellor@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 10:43:06AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:00 AM Nathan Chancellor
> > <natechancellor@...il.com> wrote:
> > > -#if QLA_64BIT_PTR
> > > +#ifdef QLA_64BIT_PTR
> >
> > Thomas should test this, as it implies the previous patch was NEVER
> > using the "true case" values, making it in effect a
> > no-functional-change (NFC).
>
> QLA_64BIT_PTR is defined to 1 when CONFIG_ARCH_DMA_ADDR_T_64BIT is set
> so the true should have always worked, unless I am misunderstanding what
> you are saying. The false case should have also worked because it is
> still evaluated to 0 but it throws the warning to make sure that was
> intended (again, as I understand it).
>
> > > #define LOAD_CMD MBC_LOAD_RAM_A64_ROM
> > > #define DUMP_CMD MBC_DUMP_RAM_A64_ROM
> > > #define CMD_ARGS (BIT_7 | BIT_6 | BIT_4 | BIT_3 | BIT_2 | BIT_1 | BIT_0)
Ah, right, so either QLA_64BIT_PTR is defined with a value of 1, or
not defined at all. My bad.
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists