[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090106110511.43b0a87a.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 11:05:11 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, tklein@...ibm.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, raisch@...ibm.com, themann@...ibm.com,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/ehea: use consistent type
Hi Dave,
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:09:01 +1100 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 21:51 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> > Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:17:30 +1100
> >
> > > ehea_plpar_hcall9() takes an unsigned long array, so pass that.
> > >
> > > This change will avoid some warnings when we change u64 to unsigned
> > > long long.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> >
> > Patch rejected, for the same reasons as the other driver
> > change.
> >
> > We're not going to poop up some drivers with the assumption that long
> > is 64-bit.
>
> Well, in that case, this patch is actually correct without considering
> the u64 change. The array is what lands in the registers of the pHyp
> call, so strictly speaking, it's an array of unsigned long's (ie, 32-bit
> on a 32-bit platform, 64-bit on a 64-bit platform), not an array of
> u64's. This function being a wrapper on that pHyp call, it may as well
> use the right type.
So, any response?
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@...b.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists