Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1

Andrew Morton wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
>
> Now that we have DMA_BIT_MASK(), these macros are pointless.
>   

Except, unfortunately, DMA_64BIT_MASK.  I guess we could special case
it, assuming this works in all the contexts the macro is used in (ie,
compile-time constant?):

#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n)	(((n) == 64) ? ~0ULL : ((1ULL<<(n))-1))



    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 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD
• Next by Date: libata-dev.git rebased; ACPI turned on
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1
• 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]