| To: | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Raylink/WebGear testing - ray_cs.c iomem bug? |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 6 Oct 2004 11:14:31 -0700 |
| Cc: | jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx, acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, corey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.58.0410061102590.8290@ppc970.osdl.org> |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.58.0410061032410.8290@ppc970.osdl.org> <20041006105453.5f7d1888.davem@davemloft.net> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0410061102590.8290@ppc970.osdl.org> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 11:06:45 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > NUMBER_OF_CCS is 64, and the difference between CCS_BASE and RCS_BASE > > is 0x400 so this really doesn't account for anything. > > It does, though: as I noted in my second mail (after trying to figure it > out some more) the size of both ccs and rcs is 16 bytes, so when you > offset by 64, so the difference between RCS_BASE and CCS_BASE ends up > being exactly "NUMBER_OF_CCS*sizeof(struct ccs/rcs)", which explains how > the base is the same, and the _index_ ends up being the one that selects > between the two. Right, that makes perfect sense. I missed how it was doing structure pointer arithmetic when offsetting by the index. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Raylink/WebGear testing - ray_cs.c iomem bug?, Linus Torvalds |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH 1/2] [SKBUFF] use eth_hdr(skb), skb->mac.raw cases, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Raylink/WebGear testing - ray_cs.c iomem bug?, Linus Torvalds |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Raylink/WebGear testing - ray_cs.c iomem bug?, Linus Torvalds |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |