From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/ehea: use consistent type Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:19:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20090105.161926.141190504.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20081230.215101.228854586.davem@davemloft.net> <1230714541.15389.69.camel@pasglop> <20090106110511.43b0a87a.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org, tklein@de.ibm.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, raisch@de.ibm.com, themann@de.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org To: sfr@canb.auug.org.au Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:46766 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750730AbZAFATZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jan 2009 19:19:25 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20090106110511.43b0a87a.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Stephen Rothwell Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 11:05:11 +1100 > Hi Dave, > > On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:09:01 +1100 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > > Well, in that case, this patch is actually correct without considering > > the u64 change. The array is what lands in the registers of the pHyp > > call, so strictly speaking, it's an array of unsigned long's (ie, 32-bit > > on a 32-bit platform, 64-bit on a 64-bit platform), not an array of > > u64's. This function being a wrapper on that pHyp call, it may as well > > use the right type. > > So, any response? Please resubmit, I'll take another look :-)