Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > There's already a generic implementation so use that instead. > --- > I'm not sure if the driver usage of atomic_or?() is correct in terms of > storage size of @val for 64 bit arches. > > Assuming LP64 programming model for linux on say x86_64: atomic_or() > callers in this driver use long (sana 64 bit) storage and pass it to > atomic_orr/atomic_or which downcasts it to 32 bits. Is that OK ? > --- > Cc: Brett Rudley <brudley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Arend van Spriel <arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Franky (Zhenhui) Lin" <frankyl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Hante Meuleman <meuleman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Pieter-Paul Giesberts <pieterpg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Daniel Kim <dekim@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: brcm80211-dev-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vgupta@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vgupta@xxxxxxxxxxxx> What's the plan with this patch? Should I take it to my wireless-drivers-next tree or will someone else take it? -- Kalle Valo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
