Subject: Re: [git patches] net driver fixes

From: Adrian Bunk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 00:13:29 +0200

On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 10:54:01AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>...
> maximilian attems (1):
>       starfire list alpha as 64 bit arch
>...
> --- a/drivers/net/starfire.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/starfire.c
> @@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ static int full_duplex[MAX_UNITS] = {0, };
>   * This SUCKS.
>   * We need a much better method to determine if dma_addr_t is 64-bit.
>   */
> -#if (defined(__i386__) && defined(CONFIG_HIGHMEM64G)) || defined(__x86_64__) || defined (__ia64__) || defined(__mips64__) || (defined(__mips__) && defined(CONFIG_HIGHMEM) && defined(CONFIG_64BIT_PHYS_ADDR))
> +#if (defined(__i386__) && defined(CONFIG_HIGHMEM64G)) || defined(__x86_64__) || defined (__ia64__) || defined(__alpha__) || defined(__mips64__) || (defined(__mips__) && defined(CONFIG_HIGHMEM) && defined(CONFIG_64BIT_PHYS_ADDR))
>  /* 64-bit dma_addr_t */
>  #define ADDR_64BITS	/* This chip uses 64 bit addresses. */
>  #define netdrv_addr_t u64
>...

The patch is correct and definitely the best solution at this time of 
the 2.6.22 development cycle.

But the comment in the context exactly matches what I thought when
I saw this code...

Does anyone have a suggestion how to do this better?

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed