Kumar Gala <[email protected]> writes: > Warnings primarily, however I think some places have assumptions about size > that have to be looked at. Ok. So nothing too bad just a thorough audit. Although any driver that has a real problem with a 64bit type is already broken on every 64bit arch. And we do need the 64bit type so we can handle 64bit pci resources on x86 and ppc32 at some point. Eric - 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:
- [RFC][PATCH] Expanding the size of "start" and "end" field in "struct resource"
- From: Vivek Goyal <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH] Expanding the size of "start" and "end" field in "struct resource"
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH] Expanding the size of "start" and "end" field in "struct resource"
- From: Kumar Gala <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH] Expanding the size of "start" and "end" field in "struct resource"
- From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)
- Re: [RFC][PATCH] Expanding the size of "start" and "end" field in "struct resource"
- From: Kumar Gala <[email protected]>
- [RFC][PATCH] Expanding the size of "start" and "end" field in "struct resource"
- Prev by Date: Re: [RFC] Proposed manpage additions for ptrace(2)
- Next by Date: Re: [RFC, PATCH 21/24] i386 Vmi proc node
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Expanding the size of "start" and "end" field in "struct resource"
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Expanding the size of "start" and "end" field in "struct resource"
- Index(es):
 |