Re: [RFC][PATCH] Expanding the size of "start" and "end" field in "struct resource"

[Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>]

On Mar 15, 2006, at 2:01 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:

> On Mar 15, 2006, at 1:57 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > > One of the possible solutions to this problem is that expand the  
> > > size
> > > of "start" and "end" to "unsigned long long". But whole of the  
> > > PCI and
> > > driver code has been written assuming start and end to be  
> > > unsigned long
> > > and compiler starts throwing warnings.
> >
> >
> > please use dma_addr_t then instead of unsigned long long
> >
> > this is the right size on all platforms afaik (could a ppc64 person
> > verify this?> ;)
>
> Actually we really just want "start" and "end" to be u64 on all  
> platforms.  Linus was ok with this change but no one has gone  
> through and fixed everything that would be required for it.

As my memory comes back to me on this.  I also believe that Andrew  
asked me for size comparisons between a kernel using 32-bit start/end  
and 64-bit start/end on a 32-bit machine for a allyesconfig build.  I  
don't believe I ever got around to doing this or reporting the  
numbers to him.  It would be useful to have both code size  
differences and run time (if possible).

- kumar
-
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/