Re: [PATCH] intel-iommu: Work around yet another BIOS bug

[Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>]

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 02:44:53AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:01:58 +0100 David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> > +	if (iommu->cap == (uint64_t)-1 && iommu->ecap == (uint64_t)-1) {
> > +		/* Promote an attitude of violence to a BIOS engineer today */
> > +		WARN(1, "Your BIOS is broken; DMAR reported at address %llx returns all ones!\n"
> > +		     "BIOS vendor: %s; Ver: %s; Product Version: %s\n",
> > +		     drhd->reg_base_addr,
> 
> Printing a u64 with %ll will (still) generate a warning on four architectures.

We've got them all now.

$ grep -l int-l64 arch/*/include/asm/types.h
arch/alpha/include/asm/types.h
arch/ia64/include/asm/types.h
arch/mips/include/asm/types.h
arch/powerpc/include/asm/types.h
$ grep -l int-ll64 $(grep -l int-l64 arch/*/include/asm/types.h)
arch/alpha/include/asm/types.h
arch/ia64/include/asm/types.h
arch/mips/include/asm/types.h
arch/powerpc/include/asm/types.h

ie all architectures which use int-l64 only do so for the benefit of
userspace, and use int-ll64 within the kernel.  I did check this by hand
too ;-)

-- 
Matthew Wilcox				Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."