Re: [PATCH 0/2] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v1

Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
>> +#define DMA_64BIT_MASK	DMA_BIT_MASK(64)
>>     
>
> This one does not do what you mean. You need an explicit mask or a
> ~0ULL here.

Yeah, I was just about to comment on it.  Its possible the compiler
might decide to shift by x%64 = 0.

    J

-
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: [PATCH 0/2] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v1
    • From: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH 0/2] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v1
    • From: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 0/2] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v1
    • From: Muli Ben-Yehuda <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 0/2] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v1
• Next by Date: Re: [patch 4/7] Immediate Values - i386 Optimization
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 0/2] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v1
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 0/2] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v1
• 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]