From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chen Gang Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch: x86: include: asm: need 'unsigned' type cast for atomic_clear_mask() Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 16:02:05 +0800 Message-ID: <51B2E4FD.4000708@asianux.com> References: <51B2CF75.1090207@asianux.com> <51B2DDC7.4070107@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from intranet.asianux.com ([58.214.24.6]:61366 "EHLO intranet.asianux.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751397Ab3FHIDW (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jun 2013 04:03:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: <51B2DDC7.4070107@zytor.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Thomas Gleixner , "mingo@redhat.com" , the arch/x86 maintainers , Andrew Morton , Paul McKenney , shli@fusionio.com, "dhowells@redhat.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Linux-Arch On 06/08/2013 03:31 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 06/07/2013 11:30 PM, Chen Gang wrote: >> > >> > atomic_set_mask() has already have 'unsigned' type case, and >> > atomic_clear_mask() is the pair of atomic_set_mask(). >> > >> > So it also need 'unsigned' type case. >> > > Pray tell, in what situation does this matter? The only reason I can > think of is if "mask" is actually a long... Excuse me, in fact, I don't know whether it will cause issue. Since atomic_set_mask() has done, I think atomic_clear_mask() also need it. If atomic_clear_mask() do need it, the atomic_set_mask() do not need it either, they are the pairs --> they will face the same situation. Thanks. -- Chen Gang Asianux Corporation