On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Matt Porter wrote:
> +spinlock_t rio_global_list_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
spin_lock_init?
> +extern struct rio_route_ops __start_rio_route_ops[];
> +extern struct rio_route_ops __end_rio_route_ops[];
rio.h?
> +static void
> +rio_set_device_id(struct rio_mport *port, u16 destid, u8 hopcount, u16 did)
Shouldn't those be on the same line?
> +static int rio_device_has_destid(struct rio_mport *port, int src_ops,
> + int dst_ops)
> +{
> + if (((src_ops & RIO_SRC_OPS_READ) ||
> + (src_ops & RIO_SRC_OPS_WRITE) ||
> + (src_ops & RIO_SRC_OPS_ATOMIC_TST_SWP) ||
> + (src_ops & RIO_SRC_OPS_ATOMIC_INC) ||
> + (src_ops & RIO_SRC_OPS_ATOMIC_DEC) ||
> + (src_ops & RIO_SRC_OPS_ATOMIC_SET) ||
> + (src_ops & RIO_SRC_OPS_ATOMIC_CLR)) &&
> + ((dst_ops & RIO_DST_OPS_READ) ||
> + (dst_ops & RIO_DST_OPS_WRITE) ||
> + (dst_ops & RIO_DST_OPS_ATOMIC_TST_SWP) ||
> + (dst_ops & RIO_DST_OPS_ATOMIC_INC) ||
> + (dst_ops & RIO_DST_OPS_ATOMIC_DEC) ||
> + (dst_ops & RIO_DST_OPS_ATOMIC_SET) ||
> + (dst_ops & RIO_DST_OPS_ATOMIC_CLR))) {
> + return 1;
Why not just;
mask = (RIO_DST_OPS_READ | RIO_DST_OPS_WRITE....)
return !!((dst_ops & mask) && (src_ops & mask))
> + rdev->dev.dma_mask = (u64 *) 0xffffffff;
> + rdev->dev.coherent_dma_mask = 0xffffffffULL;
Shouldn't that be dma_set_mask?
Zwane
-
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]
