On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 07:36:42AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > No really for this patch, but I would much prefer to document them next
> > to the code in the long run. Also I really think these BIT() macros
> > are a distraction compared to the (1 << N) notation.
>
> Not much difference
On 05/31/2016 08:15 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 01:54:06PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> The dma-mapping core and the implementations do not change the
>> DMA attributes passed by pointer. Thus the pointer can point to const
>> data. However the attributes do
On 05/31/2016 07:04 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 01:54:06PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> The dma-mapping core and the implementations do not change the
>> DMA attributes passed by pointer. Thus the pointer can point to const
>> data. However the attributes do not
On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 01:54:06PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> The dma-mapping core and the implementations do not change the
> DMA attributes passed by pointer. Thus the pointer can point to const
> data. However the attributes do not have to be a bitfield. Instead
> unsigned long will d
On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 01:54:06PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> The dma-mapping core and the implementations do not change the
> DMA attributes passed by pointer. Thus the pointer can point to const
> data. However the attributes do not have to be a bitfield. Instead
> unsigned long will d
The dma-mapping core and the implementations do not change the
DMA attributes passed by pointer. Thus the pointer can point to const
data. However the attributes do not have to be a bitfield. Instead
unsigned long will do fine:
1. This is just simpler. Both in terms of reading the code and sett
