On 11/10/2013 02:44 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > (adding linux-arch, and possible patch below) > > On Sun, 2013-11-10 at 14:10 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> Yes, on the generic it is int. >> >> The problem is in part that some architectures have bitop >> instructions with specific behavior. > > I think that all bitop indices should be changed > to unsigned (int or long, probably long) for all > arches. > > Is there any impediment to that? > It is at the very best misleading. On x86 bit indicies will be signed no matter what the data type says, and having an unsigned data type being interpreted as signed seems like really dangerous. On the other hand, for the generic implementation unsigned long makes sense. We might need a bitindex_t or something like that for it to be clean. -hpa -- 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
