Re: [PATCH] unnecessary long index i in sched

On Sat, 13 May 2006, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

> >
> >Unless we expect to have more than 4294967295 CPUs, there's no reason to
> >have 'i' as a long long here.
> >
> If declaring it as int, your number should read as 2147483647. :)
>

You know that as soon as I sent this email, I knew some wise ass was going
to respond with that!

;)

-- Steve

-
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:
  • [PATCH] unnecessary long index i in sched
    • From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] unnecessary long index i in sched
    • From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH] Fix a memory leak in pdaudiocf
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH -mm] swsusp: support creating bigger images (rev. 2)
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] unnecessary long index i in sched
• Next by thread: Re: [RFC PATCH 23/35] Increase x86 interrupt vector range
• 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]