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