From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Amit S. Kale" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.17 0/9] NetXen: 1G/10G Ethernet Driver - patch for big-endian systems Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:48:44 +0530 Message-ID: <200608251848.44800.amitkale@linsyssoft.com> References: <1156451811.13196.132.camel@wendyx.austin.ibm.com> <20060824214011.GA19643@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Pradeep Dalvi , netdev@vger.kernel.org, "jeff@garzik.org" , "sanjeev@netxen.com" , "unmproj@linsyssoft.com" , Rob Mapes , amitkale@netxen.com Return-path: Received: from svr68.ehostpros.com ([67.15.48.48]:4193 "EHLO svr68.ehostpros.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751364AbWHYNTO (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Aug 2006 09:19:14 -0400 To: Francois Romieu , Michael Buesch , wen xiong In-Reply-To: <20060824214011.GA19643@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Wendy, Michael, Ueimor, Thanks for the patch and feedback. We'll integrate these into our driver and post an update asap. -Amit On Friday 25 August 2006 03:10, Francois Romieu wrote: > wen xiong : > [...] > > > diff -Nuar old/drivers/net/netxen/netxen_nic_hw.c > > new/drivers/net/netxen/netxen_nic_hw.c --- > > old/drivers/net/netxen/netxen_nic_hw.c 2006-08-23 12:58:43.000000000 > > -0500 +++ new/drivers/net/netxen/netxen_nic_hw.c 2006-08-23 > > 13:15:19.000000000 -0500 @@ -313,7 +313,8 @@ > > } > > } > > CMD_DESC_TCP_HDR_OFFSET_WRT(desc, skb->h.raw - skb->data); > > - desc->ip_hdr_offset = skb->nh.raw - skb->data; > > + desc->length_tcp_hdr=cpu_to_le32(desc->length_tcp_hdr); > > s/=/ = / > > (several occurences) > > [...] > > > diff -Nuar old/drivers/net/netxen/netxen_nic_init.c > > new/drivers/net/netxen/netxen_nic_init.c --- > > old/drivers/net/netxen/netxen_nic_init.c 2006-08-23 12:58:43.000000000 > > -0500 +++ new/drivers/net/netxen/netxen_nic_init.c 2006-08-23 > > 13:15:19.000000000 -0500 @@ -494,7 +494,7 @@ > > desc_head = recv_ctx->rcv_status_desc_head; > > desc = &desc_head[consumer]; > > > > - if ((desc->owner & STATUS_OWNER_HOST)) > > + if (((le16_to_cpu(desc->owner)) & STATUS_OWNER_HOST)) > > Would it make a difference to swab the constant part, i.e.: > > if (desc->owner & cpu_to_le16(STATUS_OWNER_HOST))