From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/15] bitops: Change the bitmap index from int to unsigned long [frv] Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 01:37:48 +0000 Message-ID: <9679.1235612268@redhat.com> References: <49A5E876.1000501@zytor.com> <49A5C754.7000408@zytor.com> <200902250452.UAA12902@hpdst41.cup.hp.com> <16693.1235565430@redhat.com> <7355.1235605851@redhat.com> Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:52251 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752227AbZBZBjx (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:39:53 -0500 In-Reply-To: <49A5E876.1000501@zytor.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Justin Chen , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, bjorn.helgaas@hp.com, justin.chen@hp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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" David