From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/15] bitops: Change the bitmap index from int to unsigned long [frv] Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:43:55 -0800 Message-ID: <49A5F3DB.5000401@zytor.com> References: <49A5E876.1000501@zytor.com> <49A5C754.7000408@zytor.com> <200902250452.UAA12902@hpdst41.cup.hp.com> <16693.1235565430@redhat.com> <7355.1235605851@redhat.com> <9679.1235612268@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:51076 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751610AbZBZBud (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:50:33 -0500 In-Reply-To: <9679.1235612268@redhat.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: David Howells Cc: Justin Chen , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, bjorn.helgaas@hp.com, justin.chen@hp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org David Howells wrote: > H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >>> But how does it break down between "static inline type\nfunction_name" and >>> "static inline\ntype function_name"? That's more to the point. >>> >> I believe that is the breakdown is roughly what you see above, i.e. over 8:1; >> the pattern I used was looking for "^static inline[^;(]*$", and a visual >> examination of the results shows that even if my line count is slighly off the >> lopsidedness is still dramatic. > > Sorry, I meant: > > "static inline type\nfunction_name" vs "static inline type function_name" > Well, the latter is obviously in vast majority, but that doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything at all here... -hpa