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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
