On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 08/02/2017 19:24, Julien Grall wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 08/02/17 19:21, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >> On 08/02/17 19:13, Julien Grall wrote:
> >>> Hi Andrew,
> >>>
> >>> On 08/02/17 19:10, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> c/s 11c397c broke the ARM build by introduc
On 08/02/2017 19:24, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
> On 08/02/17 19:21, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 08/02/17 19:13, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> On 08/02/17 19:10, Andrew Cooper wrote:
c/s 11c397c broke the ARM build by introducing a common ACCESS_ONCE()
which is
different to
On 08/02/17 19:21, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 08/02/17 19:13, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On 08/02/17 19:10, Andrew Cooper wrote:
c/s 11c397c broke the ARM build by introducing a common ACCESS_ONCE()
which is
different to the definiton in smmu.c
Forgot this one s/definiton/definition/
T
On 08/02/17 19:13, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 08/02/17 19:10, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> c/s 11c397c broke the ARM build by introducing a common ACCESS_ONCE()
>> which is
>> different to the definiton in smmu.c
>>
>> The SMMU code included a scalar typecheck, which is worth keeping in the
Hi Andrew,
On 08/02/17 19:10, Andrew Cooper wrote:
c/s 11c397c broke the ARM build by introducing a common ACCESS_ONCE() which is
different to the definiton in smmu.c
The SMMU code included a scalar typecheck, which is worth keeping in the
common case, given ACCESS_ONCE()'s restrictions. Howev
c/s 11c397c broke the ARM build by introducing a common ACCESS_ONCE() which is
different to the definiton in smmu.c
The SMMU code included a scalar typecheck, which is worth keeping in the
common case, given ACCESS_ONCE()'s restrictions. However, express the
typecheck differently so as to avoid C
