Re: [PATCH] Fix pnpacpi_parse_irq_option()'s test against PNP_IRQ_NR

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Rene Herman <rene.herman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Pedantically, a simple unadorned int would be better it seems. The #define is
> an int, __set_bit(_) takes an int and an int is printed.

Yes, but the test doesn't check for -ve values.  If it's unsigned, it doesn't
need to.

> Hyper-pedantically, this adds one space too many :-)

Bah.

David
--
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux