On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 22:12 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > Should I push this through the c6x tree?
>
> That'd be good. For consistency, will you also include the
> GENERIC_ATOMIC64 chunk in the titled patch?
>
> I can send Andrew an updated series (reducing the c6x changes, and
> possibly the
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 09:42:58AM -0400, Mark Salter wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 10:36 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > -#define L1_CACHE_BYTESL2_CACHE_BYTES
> > > +#define L1_CACHE_SHIFTL2_CACHE_SHIFT
> > > +#define L1_CACHE_BYTES(1 << L2_CACHE_SHIFT)
> >
> > Nitpick:
On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 10:36 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > -#define L1_CACHE_BYTESL2_CACHE_BYTES
> > +#define L1_CACHE_SHIFTL2_CACHE_SHIFT
> > +#define L1_CACHE_BYTES(1 << L2_CACHE_SHIFT)
>
> Nitpick: the last line could better be:
>
> +#define L1_CACHE_BYTES(1 <<
On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 10:36 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
-#define L1_CACHE_BYTESL2_CACHE_BYTES
+#define L1_CACHE_SHIFTL2_CACHE_SHIFT
+#define L1_CACHE_BYTES(1 L2_CACHE_SHIFT)
Nitpick: the last line could better be:
+#define L1_CACHE_BYTES(1
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 09:42:58AM -0400, Mark Salter wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 10:36 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
-#define L1_CACHE_BYTESL2_CACHE_BYTES
+#define L1_CACHE_SHIFTL2_CACHE_SHIFT
+#define L1_CACHE_BYTES(1 L2_CACHE_SHIFT)
Nitpick: the last line
On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 22:12 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
Should I push this through the c6x tree?
That'd be good. For consistency, will you also include the
GENERIC_ATOMIC64 chunk in the titled patch?
I can send Andrew an updated series (reducing the c6x changes, and
possibly the
> Sorry I have no compilers for build testing these changes, however the
> risk looks low and it's much better than to leave the arch broken,
> considering that Eric will do atomic64_t in the core fs/namespace.c code.
>
> CC: "Eric W. Biederman"
> Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu
It looks ok for
> -#define L1_CACHE_BYTESL2_CACHE_BYTES
> +#define L1_CACHE_SHIFTL2_CACHE_SHIFT
> +#define L1_CACHE_BYTES(1 << L2_CACHE_SHIFT)
Nitpick: the last line could better be:
+#define L1_CACHE_BYTES(1 << L1_CACHE_SHIFT)
Reviewed-by: Fengguang Wu
Thanks!
--
To
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:22:49PM -0400, Mark Salter wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 23:34 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > Sorry I have no compilers for build testing these changes, however the
> > risk looks low and it's much better than to leave the arch broken,
> > considering that Eric will do
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 23:34 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Sorry I have no compilers for build testing these changes, however the
> risk looks low and it's much better than to leave the arch broken,
> considering that Eric will do atomic64_t in the core fs/namespace.c
> code.
>
> CC: "Eric W.
Sorry I have no compilers for build testing these changes, however the
risk looks low and it's much better than to leave the arch broken,
considering that Eric will do atomic64_t in the core fs/namespace.c code.
CC: "Eric W. Biederman"
Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu
---
Andrew: the arch
Sorry I have no compilers for build testing these changes, however the
risk looks low and it's much better than to leave the arch broken,
considering that Eric will do atomic64_t in the core fs/namespace.c code.
CC: Eric W. Biederman ebied...@xmission.com
Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 23:34 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
Sorry I have no compilers for build testing these changes, however the
risk looks low and it's much better than to leave the arch broken,
considering that Eric will do atomic64_t in the core fs/namespace.c
code.
CC: Eric W. Biederman
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:22:49PM -0400, Mark Salter wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 23:34 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
Sorry I have no compilers for build testing these changes, however the
risk looks low and it's much better than to leave the arch broken,
considering that Eric will do
-#define L1_CACHE_BYTESL2_CACHE_BYTES
+#define L1_CACHE_SHIFTL2_CACHE_SHIFT
+#define L1_CACHE_BYTES(1 L2_CACHE_SHIFT)
Nitpick: the last line could better be:
+#define L1_CACHE_BYTES(1 L1_CACHE_SHIFT)
Reviewed-by: Fengguang Wu fengguang...@intel.com
Thanks!
Sorry I have no compilers for build testing these changes, however the
risk looks low and it's much better than to leave the arch broken,
considering that Eric will do atomic64_t in the core fs/namespace.c code.
CC: Eric W. Biederman ebied...@xmission.com
Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu
16 matches
Mail list logo