On Monday 27 July 2015 01:08 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>>> >> Per last discussion on this topic, Arend wanted to discuss abt this with
>>> >> Hante.
>>> >> I'm not taking it anyways so feel free to pick it up if you want !
>> >
>> > Well, that was before your "timeline" clarification about the generic
Arend van Spriel writes:
> On 07/24/2015 07:22 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> On Friday 24 July 2015 08:02 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>>> Vineet Gupta writes:
>>>
> There's already a generic implementation so use that instead.
> ---
> I'm not sure if the driver usage of atomic_or?() is correc
On 07/24/2015 07:22 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On Friday 24 July 2015 08:02 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
Vineet Gupta writes:
There's already a generic implementation so use that instead.
---
I'm not sure if the driver usage of atomic_or?() is correct in terms of
storage size of @val for 64 bit arches.
On Friday 24 July 2015 08:02 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Vineet Gupta writes:
>
>> > There's already a generic implementation so use that instead.
>> > ---
>> > I'm not sure if the driver usage of atomic_or?() is correct in terms of
>> > storage size of @val for 64 bit arches.
>> >
>> > Assuming LP64
Vineet Gupta writes:
> There's already a generic implementation so use that instead.
> ---
> I'm not sure if the driver usage of atomic_or?() is correct in terms of
> storage size of @val for 64 bit arches.
>
> Assuming LP64 programming model for linux on say x86_64: atomic_or()
> callers in this
On 07/10/2015 06:49 AM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On Thursday 09 July 2015 11:55 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
On 07/09/2015 10:13 AM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
There's already a generic implementation so use that instead.
There is or there was? If there is now I am fine with this patch, but if
it already w
On Thursday 09 July 2015 11:55 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> On 07/09/2015 10:13 AM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> > There's already a generic implementation so use that instead.
> There is or there was? If there is now I am fine with this patch, but if
> it already was there the author might have had a
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 08:31:16PM +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> >There is or there was? If there is now I am fine with this patch, but if
> >it already was there the author might have had a reason for adding a
> >local function and I would like to hear that reason.
>
> Nevermind. Just noticed
On 07/09/2015 08:25 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
On 07/09/2015 10:13 AM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
There's already a generic implementation so use that instead.
There is or there was? If there is now I am fine with this patch, but if
it already was there the author might have had a reason for adding
On 07/09/2015 10:13 AM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
There's already a generic implementation so use that instead.
There is or there was? If there is now I am fine with this patch, but if
it already was there the author might have had a reason for adding a
local function and I would like to hear that
There's already a generic implementation so use that instead.
---
I'm not sure if the driver usage of atomic_or?() is correct in terms of
storage size of @val for 64 bit arches.
Assuming LP64 programming model for linux on say x86_64: atomic_or()
callers in this driver use long (sana 64 bit) stora
11 matches
Mail list logo
