From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sunset.davemloft.net (unknown [74.93.104.97]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A138FDE2CE for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2009 11:05:35 +1100 (EST) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:05:35 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <20090105.160535.24967514.davem@davemloft.net> To: sfr@canb.auug.org.au Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/ehea: bitops work on unsigned longs From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20090106105951.62b0429d.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20081231141853.c6d123c4.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20081230.215156.151347026.davem@davemloft.net> <20090106105951.62b0429d.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: tklein@de.ibm.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, raisch@de.ibm.com, themann@de.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Stephen Rothwell Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:59:51 +1100 > Hi Dave, > > On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:51:56 -0800 (PST) David Miller wrote: > > > > From: Stephen Rothwell > > Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:18:53 +1100 > > > > > These changes will avoid several warnings when we change u64 to unsigned > > > long long. > > > > > > Also, ehea_driver_flags is only used in ehca_main.c > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell > > > --- > > > > And also rejected, just like the previous two. > > > > This is so much worse than the problems we had with > > printing u64's and it's being done as a result to > > the "fix" for that. > > How is this worse than anything? The only thing wrong with this patch is > the commit message ... Lets try this (if this doesn't address your > problems, then assume I am too dense for your original explanation): Aha, yes the commit message fooled me :-) New patch is fine and I'll toss this into net-2.6