On Tuesday 22 April 2008, Moore, Robert wrote: > >would probably work just as well. Certainly acpi_native_uint was > overkill. > > I disagree. Often more efficient to use machine native word rather than > fooling around with a byte load/clear and store perhaps you mis-read my message. I went with "unsigned", which is 32-bits on both 32 and 64 bit x86. I shouldn't have mentioned that a byte was sufficient -- my point was simply that it is darn unlikely that we'd overflow a capacity of 2^8. There is zero chance we'd overflow 2^32; and thus no practical utility for 2^64 index capacitiy. I don't think that using a 32-bit index is a performance penalty on the hardware we care about. I also don't think that performance is important here. -Len -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
