Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ULL fixes for qlogicfc | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Date | Mon, 29 Sep 2003 22:33:49 +0200 |
| |
On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 22:25, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Followup to: <20030929172329.GD6526@gtf.org> > By author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 06:04:34PM +0100, davej@redhat.com wrote: > > > diff -urpN --exclude-from=/home/davej/.exclude bk-linus/drivers/scsi/qlogicfc.c linux-2.5/drivers/scsi/qlogicfc.c > > > --- bk-linus/drivers/scsi/qlogicfc.c 2003-09-08 00:47:00.000000000 +0100 > > > +++ linux-2.5/drivers/scsi/qlogicfc.c 2003-09-08 01:30:56.000000000 +0100 > > > @@ -718,8 +718,8 @@ int isp2x00_detect(Scsi_Host_Template * > > > continue; > > > > > > /* Try to configure DMA attributes. */ > > > - if (pci_set_dma_mask(pdev, (u64) 0xffffffffffffffff) && > > > - pci_set_dma_mask(pdev, (u64) 0xffffffff)) > > > + if (pci_set_dma_mask(pdev, 0xffffffffffffffffULL) && > > > + pci_set_dma_mask(pdev, 0xffffffffULL)) > > > continue; > > > > Looks great. > > > > I wonder if you are motivated to create similar pci_set_dma_mask() > > cleanups for other drivers? ;-) Several other drivers need this same > > cleanup, too. > > > > Dumb question: why marking these explicitly as ULL instead of letting > the compiler do its usual promotion?
even dumbe question, why don't we provide ONE #define PCI_DMA_MASK_64BIT that does it right.... and use that in all needed places (of course we need a _32BIT one too) [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |