On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 11:27 -0800, Tim Chen wrote: > On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 20:22 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > Thanks, but I'd put that comment before the structure definition with the > > "NOTE:" prefix and I think you should explain the reason why that field > > shouldn't be changed to 64-bits. > > > > Either you or James want to suggest a comment on why the field shouldn't > be changed to 64-bits to be placed there? /* * Note: The lockless read read path depends on the CPU accessing * target_value atomically. Atomic access is only guaranteed on all CPU * types linux supports for 32 bit quantites */ James _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
