On Monday 01 September 2003 18:30, Luca Berra wrote: > the issue is that fls(x) function in 2.6 use int, same as the fls(x) in > the swsusp patches, while fls(x) in dm patches use unsigned int. > so which would the correct implementation of fls be? The declaration in the standard library is correct by definition, and mine was incorrect, regardless of which is more sensible. However, since the automatic type conversion (which generates no code) works fine, there is no reason not to use the more descriptive 'unsigned' declaration for variables. Regards, Daniel
