On 06/08/2013 04:02 PM, Chen Gang wrote: > On 06/08/2013 03:31 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> > On 06/07/2013 11:30 PM, Chen Gang wrote: >>>> >> > >>>> >> > atomic_set_mask() has already have 'unsigned' type case, and >>>> >> > atomic_clear_mask() is the pair of atomic_set_mask(). >>>> >> > >>>> >> > So it also need 'unsigned' type case. >>>> >> > >> > Pray tell, in what situation does this matter? The only reason I can >> > think of is if "mask" is actually a long... > Excuse me, in fact, I don't know whether it will cause issue. Since > atomic_set_mask() has done, I think atomic_clear_mask() also need it. > > If atomic_clear_mask() do need it, the atomic_set_mask() do not need it > either, they are the pairs --> they will face the same situation. Oh, my typo, it should be "If atomic_clear_mask() do not need it, the atomic_set_mask() do not need it either, the are face same situation". Thanks. -- Chen Gang Asianux Corporation -- 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
