![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 06:56:32PM -0600, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 06:55:15PM -0600, Jon Mason wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 12:03:06AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Hi!> > > > > > > +union tce_entry {> > > > + u64 te_word;> > > > + struct {> > > > + unsigned int read :1; /* read allowed */> > > > + unsigned int write :1; /* write allowed */
> > > > + unsigned int hubid :6; /* hub id - unused */
> > > > + unsigned int rsvd :4; /* reserved */> > > > + unsigned long rpn :36; /* Real page number */
> > > > + unsigned int unused :16; /* unused */> > > > + } bits;> > > > +};> > > > > > I'd say this is going to be pretty flakey.> > > > Why do you think this would be flakey? It's nearly identical to the
> > tce_entry definition in include/asm-powerpc/tce.h (endien swapped, of
> > course).> > We're killing structures like that one by one on PPC, I just haven't
> gotten around to dealing with tce_entry yet.> > The way to do it is to use masking and shifting by hand.
Really? I thought this was much more elegant than masking and
bitshifting (and less prone to errors). Is there a particular reason to
do it that way?
Thanks,
Jon
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-03-15 02:27 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||