On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 12:31:25PM -0700, Eric Sandeen wrote: > However, there seems to be some unstated (?) naming convention about foo_bmap > (for 64-bit bitmaps) vs. foo_bitmap (for 32-bit bitmaps), and "bitmap2" > functions which seem to take 64-bit args, etc. I'm not sure if this new > function needs to follow similar conventions... I guess... I thought I had figured those out when I sent the patch, but I'm not so sure anymore :-) > My patch is probably overkill, so I won't bother to send it unless Ted > thinks something like that is necessary. Documenting the api preservation > framework for 64-bit bitmaps would be really helpful, I think. Yeah, I'm sorry it took me a while to look at this and for causing you extra work. Sami
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
