Arend van Spriel ar...@broadcom.com writes:
On 07/24/2015 07:22 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On Friday 24 July 2015 08:02 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
Vineet Gupta vineet.gup...@synopsys.com writes:
There's already a generic implementation so use that instead.
---
I'm not sure if the driver usage of
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
function. One what
On 07/24/2015 07:22 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On Friday 24 July 2015 08:02 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
Vineet Gupta vineet.gup...@synopsys.com 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
On Friday 24 July 2015 08:02 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
Vineet Gupta vineet.gup...@synopsys.com 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.
Vineet Gupta vineet.gup...@synopsys.com 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:
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
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
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 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
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)
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 you are
11 matches
Mail list logo
