Re: possible breakage with the >= 020 bfset et al bitops

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

 



On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Side note: in arch/m68k/include/asm/bitops.h, shouldn't the bit
> number parameter 'nr' be 'unsigned int' for consistency with
> Documentation/atomic_ops.txt?  Surely nothing expects to be able
> to use negative bit numbers...?

Haven't check all archs, but:

m68k: int
x86: mix of signed and unsigned int
Documentation/atomic_ops.txt: unsigned long
asm-generic: int

So at least we're consistent with asm-generic...

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Newbies]     [x86 Platform Driver]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux