On 9 Sep 2011, at 09:30, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 07:35:37PM +0200, Chris Boot wrote:
>> On 4 Sep 2011, at 21:54, Arvydas Sidorenko wrote:
>>
>>> #ifndef uint64_t
>>> -typedef struct _uint64_t {
>>> +struct _uint64_t {
>>> uint32_t low_dw;
>>> uint32_t hi_dw;
>>> } uint64_t;
>>> #endif
>>
>> This can't be right can it? You're changing a typedef into a
>> variable definition as far as I can see.
>
> Yes. You are right. The "uint64_t" is a variable now so this patch
> is wrong.
>
> (Or maybe you knew that and the question was rhetorical? It's hard
> to tell over email.)
Dan,
Sorry, I had just come back well-watered from a nice meal last night! :-) Yes I realised that wasn't what you meant to do with your patch, sorry it came out the wrong way.
Without looking at the code I imagine you could remove the entire definition above, but that's just a guess.
HTH,
Chris
--
Chris Boot
bootc@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
