From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from de01egw01.freescale.net (de01egw01.freescale.net [192.88.165.102]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "de01egw01.freescale.net", Issuer "Thawte Premium Server CA" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD872DDE23 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 04:46:12 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <461BDB69.4050405@freescale.com> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:46:01 -0500 From: Timur Tabi MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc: change rheap functions to use ulongs instead of pointers References: <11757244213581-git-send-email-timur@freescale.com> <461AAF2F.2020608@freescale.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, tnt@246tNt.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Kumar Gala wrote: > If we are "cleaning up" rheap I would suggest we think about moving > it to the generic lib directory and have it available for wider use > beyond powerpc. I'm not saying that's a bad idea, but that really is outside the scope of my intentions. I'm not really cleaning up rheap as I am fixing one specific problem. I don't think there's any disagreement here that an integer type (in this case, unsigned long) is better than a void * for storing a generic value. I was really hoping I could get a consensus on whether or not *this* patch is good for *our* rheap implementation. -- Timur Tabi Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale