On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Al Viro wrote: > > a) typedef unsigned int __nocast gfp_t; Btw, since you did a typedef, any reason why it isn't marked __bitwise too? It would seem that all valid uses of it are bit tests with predefined values, ie a __bitwise restriction would seem very natural, no? Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- [RFC] gfp flags annotations - part 7 (block layer)
- From: Al Viro <[email protected]>
- [RFC] gfp flags annotations - part 6 (simple parts of fs/*)
- From: Al Viro <[email protected]>
- [RFC] gfp flags annotations - part 5 (net/*)
- From: Al Viro <[email protected]>
- [RFC] gfp flags annotations - part 4 (lib/*)
- From: Al Viro <[email protected]>
- [RFC] gfp flags annotations - part 2
- From: Al Viro <[email protected]>
- [RFC] gfp flags annotations - part 3 (simple parts of mm/*)
- From: Al Viro <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] gfp flags annotations
- From: Alexey Dobriyan <[email protected]>
- [RFC] gfp flags annotations - part 7 (block layer)
- References:
- [PATCHSET] 2.6.14-rc3-git4-bird1
- From: Al Viro <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCHSET] 2.6.14-rc3-git4-bird1
- From: Alexey Dobriyan <[email protected]>
- [RFC] gfp flags annotations
- From: Al Viro <[email protected]>
- [PATCHSET] 2.6.14-rc3-git4-bird1
- Prev by Date: Re: robust futex patch for 2.6.14-rc3-rt13
- Next by Date: Re: [patch 3/4] new serial flow control
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] gfp flags annotations - part 1
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC] gfp flags annotations
- Index(es):