[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 2/3] x86-64: Calgary IOMMU - Calgary specific bits
    On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 07:27:33PM -0600, Jon Mason wrote:

    > > 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?

    Me too, but what I've been told is that there's no guarantee for the
    union/struct layouts being exactly like you (and the hardware) expects
    them to be across toolchains, etc.

    The endianness issues are also painful, in architecture-specific code it's
    obviously not as big an issue as in generic drivers. Single-architecture
    system drivers are a grey area in that aspect, but it's better to set
    good examples then bad ones for the generic driver writers looking for
    example code.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-03-15 04:27    [W:0.024 / U:11.944 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site