From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH] bitops.h: Widen BIT macro to support 64-bit types Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 08:27:01 -0600 Message-ID: <20101014142701.GP10421@parisc-linux.org> References: <20101013131057.88238be6.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <20101014042409.GB29342@aftab> <20101014105855.GB31247@aftab> <20101014111213.GO10421@parisc-linux.org> <20101014121230.GC31247@aftab> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:46288 "EHLO mail.parisc-linux.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754594Ab0JNO1E (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:27:04 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101014121230.GC31247@aftab> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Randy Dunlap , Linus Torvalds , lkml , Doug Thompson , akpm , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 02:12:30PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > From: Matthew Wilcox > Date: Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 07:12:13AM -0400 > > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:58:55PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > #ifdef __KERNEL__ > > > -#define BIT(nr) (1UL << (nr)) > > > +#define BIT(nr) (U64_C(1) << (nr)) > > > > Why not just use 1ULL instead? > > Wanted to be __ASSEMBLY__ safe. Admirable, but the entire file is __ASSEMBLY__ unsafe at this point, so I don't see the point. -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."