From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Eilon Greenstein" <eilong@broadcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/34]bnx2x: Compilation issue on IA64
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:42:27 +0200
Message-ID: <1232700147.31321.7.camel@lb-tlvb-eliezer>
References: <1231951391.11301.131.camel@lb-tlvb-eliezer>
 <1231952824.3010.29.camel@achroite>
 <1231955073.11301.161.camel@lb-tlvb-eliezer>
 <20090114.131058.248785392.davem@davemloft.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "bhutchings@solarflare.com" <bhutchings@solarflare.com>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
To: "David Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mms3.broadcom.com ([216.31.210.19]:4162 "EHLO MMS3.broadcom.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752819AbZAWInd (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:43:33 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20090114.131058.248785392.davem@davemloft.net>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 13:10 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Eilon Greenstein" <eilong@broadcom.com>
> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:44:33 +0200
> 
> > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 09:07 -0800, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 18:43 +0200, Eilon Greenstein wrote:
> > > > Signed-off-by: Eilon Greenstein <eilong@broadcom.com>
> > [...]  
> > > >  #ifdef BNX2X_STOP_ON_ERROR
> > > >  	fp->tpa_queue_used |= (1 << queue);
> > > > -#ifdef __powerpc64__
> > > > +#if (defined __powerpc64__) || (defined _ASM_IA64_TYPES_H)
> > > >  	DP(NETIF_MSG_RX_STATUS, "fp->tpa_queue_used = 0x%lx\n",
> > > >  #else
> > > >  	DP(NETIF_MSG_RX_STATUS, "fp->tpa_queue_used = 0x%llx\n",
> > > 
> > > Or you could cast the value to unsigned long long and remove this
> > > fragile #ifdef.
> > > 
> > You are right - it is a better solution. The issue is that this uglier
> > solution is already in, and I hate to re-send this patch just for this.
> > Can we have this one applied and I will re visit it in net-next?
> 
> There is no reason to crap up any driver with arch ifdefs, absolutely
> none, for this typing issue.
> 
> The whole point is that we're trying to get all of the arch's to use
> the same type for u64 in the kernel, so that these warnings can be
> cleared away very easily.
> 
> Live with the warnings meanwhile until this is all sorted out.

I can live with that, but I was wondering if this change is something
that you can consider:
-#ifdef __powerpc64__
+#ifdef _ASM_GENERIC_INT_L64_H

My problem is that in the mean time, the driver has this __powerpc64__
ifdef in it.