On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 09:29:52AM -0800, Ken Chen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> wait, why does this need to be changed?
> >
> > We have:
> > clocksource_tick.read = tick_ops->get_tick;
> >
> > And clocksource_tick is of type clocksource:
> >
> > struct clocksource {
> > ...
> > cycle_t (*read)(void);
> >
> > And cycle_t is:
> > /* clocksource cycle base type */
> > typedef u64 cycle_t;
> >
> > And u64 is now:
> > unsigned long long - thus we need to fix prototype
> > of get_tick to fix the warnings.
> >
> > A cast could do it - but fixing the real problem
> > is better here.
>
> Sounds good to me. It was just a question. Thank you for the explanation.
Hey - it triggered me to take a deeper look at it.
And thanks for actually reading the patch - it's always good that
an extra pair of eyes look over it even it is only quick browsing.
Sam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
