Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:09:08 +0900 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] asm-generic: architecture independent readq/writeq for 32bit environment | From | Hitoshi Mitake <> |
| |
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 14:59, hpanvin@gmail.com <hpa@zytor.com> wrote: > The point is that the type for all readq/writeq should be u64.
So do you mean that readq/writeq should be defined without bulid_mmio_read/write? (in the case of x86) bulid_mmio_read/write define the parameter type of read/write[bwlq] as void *.
And are there some situations that void * typed parameter of readq/writeq causes problems?
> > Hitoshi Mitake <h.mitake@gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 23:45, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote: >>> On 02/09/2012 05:37 AM, Hitoshi Mitake wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:47, hpanvin@gmail.com<hpa@zytor.com> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Should be volatile u64 * not volatile void *... >>>> >>>> >>>> Is this the type of parameters? >>>> The parameters of atomic readq/writeq defined in >>arch/x86/include/asm/io.h >>>> are defined as void *. I think that atomic readq/writeq and >>non-atomic >>>> readq/writeq >>>> should have same typed parameters and return values. >>>> >>> >>> That sounds like a bug. >>> >>> -hpa >>> >> >>Sorry for my bad writing, I didn't mention: >>the parameter type == the return value type >> >>My intention is: >>parameter type of atomic readq/writeq == parameter type of non-atomic >>readq/writeq >>&& >>return value type of atomic readq/writeq == return value type of >>non-atomic readq/writeq >> >># == means "should be equal" >> >>-- >>Hitoshi Mitake >>h.mitake@gmail.com > > -- > Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-- Hitoshi Mitake h.mitake@gmail.com -- 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/
| |