Hi Dave, On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:09:01 +1100 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 21:51 -0800, David Miller wrote: > > From: Stephen Rothwell <s...@canb.auug.org.au> > > Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:17:30 +1100 > > > > > ehea_plpar_hcall9() takes an unsigned long array, so pass that. > > > > > > This change will avoid some warnings when we change u64 to unsigned > > > long long. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <s...@canb.auug.org.au> > > > > Patch rejected, for the same reasons as the other driver > > change. > > > > We're not going to poop up some drivers with the assumption that long > > is 64-bit. > > Well, in that case, this patch is actually correct without considering > the u64 change. The array is what lands in the registers of the pHyp > call, so strictly speaking, it's an array of unsigned long's (ie, 32-bit > on a 32-bit platform, 64-bit on a 64-bit platform), not an array of > u64's. This function being a wrapper on that pHyp call, it may as well > use the right type.
So, any response? -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
pgpVrmTpvWut9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
