On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 04:59:11PM +0530, Rajeshwari Birje wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Rajeshwari Birje > >> This patch is still not setting bits_per_word_mask as far as I can see? > > Will send new version of patch including this. > I had some confusion regarding this bits_per_word_mask, where do you > want me to mask the bpw. > bits_per_word is something which comes from the user, do we need to mask it? Have you looked at the code and documentation for this feature - if it's not clear can you please explain in more detail what needs clarifying?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
