From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Knutsson Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 03:23:13 +0000 Subject: Re: [KJ] DMA_{32,64}BIT_MASK Message-Id: <466628A1.6030707@student.ltu.se> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Kevin Jackson wrote: > Hi, > > Based on this TODO: > - pci_set_dma_mask() and friends should use DMA_{32,64}BIT_MASK > instead of... > > I started playing with grep to see if I could find any code which > wasn't using this DMA_32|64BIT_MASK. > > In drivers/scsi/3w-xxxx.c, instead of using DMA_32BIT_MASK the > pci_set_dma_mask uses TW_DMA_MASK which is declared in > drivers/scsi/3-xxxx.h : > > #define TW_DMA_MASK DMA_32BIT_MASK > > This looks to my untrained eye like an API was changed and to get > compatibility, the TW_DMA_MASK was simply defined to be the same as > DMA_32BIT_MASK. > > Again this is my second day (about 4 hours in) at looking at kernel > code, but my naive assumption is that nothing would be lost by > removing the TW_DMA_MASK definition completely from both the .c and .h > files and using the DMA_32BIT_MASK directly. > > Can anyone tell me that I'm either correct or talking total crap? :) > If I'm right about this the next step would of course be to supply a > (very minor) patch with the changes... scary stuff ;) As it does not add any information by the name (and only used once), I would say you are right on the spot. :) Please send in your patch. (BTW, check out Documentation/SubmittingPatches if you have not done it yet). Richard Knutsson _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list Kernel-janitors@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors