RE: [PATCH 1/12] generic *_bit()

Chen, Kenneth W writes:

> Christoph Hellwig wrote on Wednesday, February 01, 2006 10:03 AM
> > Because they are defined to operate on arrays of unsigned long
> 
> I think these should be defined to operate on arrays of unsigned int.
> Bit is a bit, no matter how many byte you load (8/16/32/64), you can
> only operate on just one bit.

Christoph is right.  Changing to unsigned int would change the layout
on big-endian 64-bit platforms.

Paul.
-
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/

---

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH 1/12] generic *_bit()
    • From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
  • RE: [PATCH 1/12] generic *_bit()
    • From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Development tree, PLEASE?
• Next by Date: Re: changing physical page
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/12] generic *_bit()
• Next by thread: [PATCH 2/12] generic __ffs()
• 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]