* asm-x86_64/bitops.h: problem with long vs int?
@ 2004-07-07 8:28 Harald Dunkel
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Harald Dunkel @ 2004-07-07 8:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LKML Mailinglist
Hi folks,
Maybe its just a cosmetic problem, but the definitions
for set_bit() and clear_bit() in asm-x86_64/bitops.h
look a little bit asymmetrical:
static __inline__ void set_bit(long nr, volatile void * addr)
static __inline__ void clear_bit(int nr, volatile void * addr)
Regards
Harri
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <2fg8d-36c-5@gated-at.bofh.it>]
* Re: asm-x86_64/bitops.h: problem with long vs int?
[not found] <2fg8d-36c-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
@ 2004-07-07 9:31 ` Andi Kleen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Andi Kleen @ 2004-07-07 9:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Harald Dunkel; +Cc: linux-kernel
"Harald Dunkel" <harald.dunkel@t-online.de> writes:
> Hi folks,
>
> Maybe its just a cosmetic problem, but the definitions
> for set_bit() and clear_bit() in asm-x86_64/bitops.h
> look a little bit asymmetrical:
>
> static __inline__ void set_bit(long nr, volatile void * addr)
> static __inline__ void clear_bit(int nr, volatile void * addr)
>
It's cosmetic, but I changed set_bit to be int now too. Thanks.
-Andi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-07-07 9:31 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-07-07 8:28 asm-x86_64/bitops.h: problem with long vs int? Harald Dunkel
[not found] <2fg8d-36c-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
2004-07-07 9:31 ` Andi Kleen
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox