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

On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 19:13 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 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.

I'll send it to you later then, in the merge window, along with the
stuff that uses it. That will give me a bit more time to actually test
it.

Cheers,
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/

---

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

• Prev by Date: [x86_64] soft lockup with sunrpc/nfsd (also DWARF2 unwinder stuck)
• Next by Date: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 6/6] Resource Groups over generic containers
• 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]