From: Stephen Rothwell <s...@canb.auug.org.au> Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 11:05:11 +1100
> Hi Dave, > > On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:09:01 +1100 Benjamin Herrenschmidt > <b...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > > > > 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? Please resubmit, I'll take another look :-) _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
