2011/1/17 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> This problem is not touched. > > So why not? The thing is supposed to be a cleanup, but it generates > uglier code and more lines added than removed. Why should I pull > something like that? Changing *_bit_le() to take "void *" instead of "unsigned long *" makes this patch series acceptable? Or do we also need to change *_bit_le() to handle unaligned address correctly? (i.e. not only long aligned address but also byte aligned address) -- 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
