John,
Please pull this patch by MB for the wireless-2.6 tree. It
replaces the one sent earlier today. Somehow, I managed to mangle
it by deleting a semicolon.
Larry
This patch depends on the 64bit DMA patch, which is already
submitted for
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 17:52, Larry Finger wrote:
> Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 10:36 -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> >> + /* Boolean. Is this a TX ring? */
> >> + u8 tx
> >> + /* Boolean. 64bit DMA if true, 32bit DMA otherwise. */
> >> + u8 dma64;
> >
> > does that compil
Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 August 2006 17:52, Larry Finger wrote:
>> Johannes Berg wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 10:36 -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
+ /* Boolean. Is this a TX ring? */
+ u8 tx
+ /* Boolean. 64bit DMA if true, 32bit DMA otherwise. */
+ u8 dma64;
Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 10:36 -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
>> +/* Boolean. Is this a TX ring? */
>> +u8 tx
>> +/* Boolean. 64bit DMA if true, 32bit DMA otherwise. */
>> +u8 dma64;
>
> does that compile?
>
> johannes
>
Yes, it did here. Did you have a problem?
John,
Please pull this patch for the wireless-2.6 tree.
This patch depends on the 64bit DMA patch, which is already
submitted for inclusion.
Convert the bitfields in the bcm43xx DMA code to properly
aligned u8 booleans. These flags are accessed in the DMA
hotpath, so it's a good idea to waste a
On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 10:36 -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> + /* Boolean. Is this a TX ring? */
> + u8 tx
> + /* Boolean. 64bit DMA if true, 32bit DMA otherwise. */
> + u8 dma64;
does that compile?
johannes
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the bo
