Re: lib/iomap.c mmio_{in,out}s* vs. __raw_* accessors

On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> 
> In fact, you might want to push it to 2.6.19 since it fixes a bug
> (current _be operations are incorrect for PIO without the patch).

Well, I doubt anybody uses them (or we'd have seen the problem), and more 
importantly, I've already blown the patch away. If you think it's easier 
for you to sync up later, though, I'll happily apply it. Mind sending it 
back to me with a Tested-by: line or something? I literally didn't even 
compile-test the thing, and blew that file away after I had generated the 
trial patch.

		Linus
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: lib/iomap.c mmio_{in,out}s* vs. __raw_* accessors
    • From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>

• References:
  • lib/iomap.c mmio_{in,out}s* vs. __raw_* accessors
    • From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>
  • Re: lib/iomap.c mmio_{in,out}s* vs. __raw_* accessors
    • From: Russell King <[email protected]>
  • Re: lib/iomap.c mmio_{in,out}s* vs. __raw_* accessors
    • From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>
  • Re: lib/iomap.c mmio_{in,out}s* vs. __raw_* accessors
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: lib/iomap.c mmio_{in,out}s* vs. __raw_* accessors
    • From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>
  • Re: lib/iomap.c mmio_{in,out}s* vs. __raw_* accessors
    • From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>
  • Re: lib/iomap.c mmio_{in,out}s* vs. __raw_* accessors
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: lib/iomap.c mmio_{in,out}s* vs. __raw_* accessors
    • From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>
  • Re: lib/iomap.c mmio_{in,out}s* vs. __raw_* accessors
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: lib/iomap.c mmio_{in,out}s* vs. __raw_* accessors
    • From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>
  • Re: lib/iomap.c mmio_{in,out}s* vs. __raw_* accessors
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: lib/iomap.c mmio_{in,out}s* vs. __raw_* accessors
    • From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>
  • Re: lib/iomap.c mmio_{in,out}s* vs. __raw_* accessors
    • From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>
  • Re: lib/iomap.c mmio_{in,out}s* vs. __raw_* accessors
    • From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: PATCH? hrtimer_wakeup: fix a theoretical race wrt rt_mutex_slowlock()
• Next by Date: Re: qstor driver -> irq 193: nobody cared
• Previous by thread: Re: lib/iomap.c mmio_{in,out}s* vs. __raw_* accessors
• Next by thread: Re: lib/iomap.c mmio_{in,out}s* vs. __raw_* accessors
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]