On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 05:13:01PM +0100, Jean Pihet wrote: > Is the name 'omap_sram_push' wrong then? > What about the following? > @@ -251,9 +251,8 @@ void * omap_sram_push(void * start, unsigned long size) > > omap_sram_ceil -= size; > omap_sram_ceil = ROUND_DOWN(omap_sram_ceil, sizeof(void *)); > - memcpy((void *)omap_sram_ceil, start, size); > - flush_icache_range((unsigned long)omap_sram_ceil, > - (unsigned long)(omap_sram_ceil + size)); > > - return (void *)omap_sram_ceil; > + return fncpy((void *)omap_sram_ceil, start, size); It's more correct, but still missing out on the type safety which we've tried to provide with fncpy. Note also the other issue with Dave Martin has raised though - this isn't ready for merging yet. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
