On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:56:12 +0530 (IST)
> Satyam Sharma <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > --- a/include/linux/kernel.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/kernel.h
> > @@ -30,6 +30,9 @@ extern const char linux_proc_banner[];
> > #define LLONG_MIN (-LLONG_MAX - 1)
> > #define ULLONG_MAX (~0ULL)
> >
> > +#define U16_MAX ((u16) ~0U)
> > +#define U32_MAX ((u32) ~0U)
> > +
>
> hm, I'd have thought that there's a risk of gcc warnings here, forcing
> 0xffffffff into a u16, but apparently not.
>
> Still, I think it'd be tidier here to tell the truth and use plain
> old 0xffff and 0xffffffff?
Hmm, that does make sense, actually -- in fact that's the only _really_
correct way to define u32_max / u16_max, I'd say. I probably got confused
seeing those bad examples in reiserfs and tcp_illinois ;-)
Thanks.
-
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/
[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]
