| To: | Leonid Grossman <leonid.grossman@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: FW: Submission for S2io 10GbE driver |
| From: | Anton Blanchard <anton@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 5 Feb 2004 14:25:20 +1100 |
| Cc: | "'Andi Kleen'" <ak@xxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, raghava.vatsavayi@xxxxxxxx, iod00d@xxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <005701c3eb92$55dc7650$7310100a@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20040205015149.GN19011@krispykreme> <005701c3eb92$55dc7650$7310100a@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i |
> We are submitting for inclusion in 2.6 kernel but we'd like to have same > code for > 2.4 kernels as well, most our customers will stay with 2.4 for a > while... If you add the bits to 2.6, we would still need a solution for > 2.4 kernel. OK, It should be easy to get the readq/writeq macros put into 2.4 as well. > > Thats how all big endian platforms work. in* and out*, read* > > and write* byteswap. > > So, we should make the code big endian specific rather than PPC64 > specific, right? Well there are non byteswapping versions on some architectures (__raw_read*/__raw_write*). However at least on ppc32 they dont contain memory barriers so you could into trouble using them. What does your code look like? You could key off __BIG_ENDIAN if you really need to. Is it performance critical? Anton |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] IPV6: note on shared socket options, David Stevens |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] IPV6: note on shared socket options, Pekka Savola |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: FW: Submission for S2io 10GbE driver, Leonid Grossman |
| Next by Thread: | Re: FW: Submission for S2io 10GbE driver, Jeff Garzik |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |