On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 08:37 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 07:54:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > unsigned int wasn't large enough? > > Adding one more bit only doubles the maximum size. That buys us, what, > another eighteen months until we have to change it again? Unsigned long > seems most sensible to me. Unsigned long long probably isn't worth > doing -- you'd have to be using one eighth of your address space on a > single bitmap. Are you serious? Bitmaps of length 4G-bit (512M-byte) are way past the sanely allocatable size anyway. The complaint was that the signed thingy resulted in out of bounds pointers (apparently unsigned doesn't?) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
