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

> Can you work based on something like this instead?
> 
> (Totally untested, I just did this as an example of what I think is a lot 
> more maintainable)

Yup, that would definitely work for me.

I'll do the same for the repeat ops..

Thanks,
Ben.


-
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]>

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/7] paravirtualization: header and stubs for paravirtualizing critical operations
Next by Date: Re: lib/iomap.c mmio_{in,out}s* vs. __raw_* accessors
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]