On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>
> > The current implementation of the DMA40's local MAX() macro evaluates
> > its arguments more times than is necessary. This patch strips it
> > optimises it to only evaluate what's appropriate.
>
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> The current implementation of the DMA40's local MAX() macro evaluates
> its arguments more times than is necessary. This patch strips it
> optimises it to only evaluate what's appropriate.
>
> Cc: Vinod Koul
> Cc: Dan Williams
> Cc: Per
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
The current implementation of the DMA40's local MAX() macro evaluates
its arguments more times than is necessary. This patch strips it
optimises it to only evaluate what's appropriate.
Cc: Vinod Koul vinod.k...@intel.com
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
The current implementation of the DMA40's local MAX() macro evaluates
its arguments more times than is necessary. This patch strips it
optimises it to only evaluate what's
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:11:50AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > The current implementation of the DMA40's local MAX() macro evaluates
> > its arguments more times than is necessary. This patch strips it
> > optimises it to only evaluate what's appropriate.
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:11:50AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> The current implementation of the DMA40's local MAX() macro evaluates
> its arguments more times than is necessary. This patch strips it
> optimises it to only evaluate what's appropriate.
>
> Cc: Vinod Koul
> Cc: Dan Williams
> Cc:
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:11:50AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
The current implementation of the DMA40's local MAX() macro evaluates
its arguments more times than is necessary. This patch strips it
optimises it to only evaluate what's appropriate.
Cc: Vinod Koul vinod.k...@intel.com
Cc: Dan
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:11:50AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
The current implementation of the DMA40's local MAX() macro evaluates
its arguments more times than is necessary. This patch strips it
optimises it to only evaluate what's appropriate.
On Thursday 18 April 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> Never got the original patch...
>
> A much better idea is to get rid of that buggy MAX() macro altogether
> and use the macros already provided by the kernel, which are safe from
> side effects - but more importantly are type _safe_.
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:46:03PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 18 April 2013, Lee Jones wrote:
> > The current implementation of the DMA40's local MAX() macro evaluates
> > its arguments more times than is necessary. This patch strips it
> > optimises it to only evaluate what's
On Thursday 18 April 2013, Lee Jones wrote:
> The current implementation of the DMA40's local MAX() macro evaluates
> its arguments more times than is necessary. This patch strips it
> optimises it to only evaluate what's appropriate.
No, it does not.
> index b21a8a3..7b451b2 100644
> ---
The current implementation of the DMA40's local MAX() macro evaluates
its arguments more times than is necessary. This patch strips it
optimises it to only evaluate what's appropriate.
Cc: Vinod Koul
Cc: Dan Williams
Cc: Per Forlin
Cc: Rabin Vincent
Reported-by: Harvey Harrison
The current implementation of the DMA40's local MAX() macro evaluates
its arguments more times than is necessary. This patch strips it
optimises it to only evaluate what's appropriate.
Cc: Vinod Koul vinod.k...@intel.com
Cc: Dan Williams d...@fb.com
Cc: Per Forlin per.for...@stericsson.com
Cc:
On Thursday 18 April 2013, Lee Jones wrote:
The current implementation of the DMA40's local MAX() macro evaluates
its arguments more times than is necessary. This patch strips it
optimises it to only evaluate what's appropriate.
No, it does not.
index b21a8a3..7b451b2 100644
---
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:46:03PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 18 April 2013, Lee Jones wrote:
The current implementation of the DMA40's local MAX() macro evaluates
its arguments more times than is necessary. This patch strips it
optimises it to only evaluate what's appropriate.
On Thursday 18 April 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
Never got the original patch...
A much better idea is to get rid of that buggy MAX() macro altogether
and use the macros already provided by the kernel, which are safe from
side effects - but more importantly are type _safe_. The
16 matches
Mail list logo
