Re: [RFC] gfp flags annotations

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]>

• 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]>

• 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):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]