[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51B2EA68.9000201@asianux.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 16:25:12 +0800
From: Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, shli@...ionio.com,
"dhowells@...hat.com" <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch: x86: include: asm: need 'unsigned' type cast for
atomic_clear_mask()
On 06/08/2013 04:02 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
> 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.
Oh, my typo, it should be "If atomic_clear_mask() do not need it, the
atomic_set_mask() do not need it either, the are face same situation".
Thanks.
--
Chen Gang
Asianux Corporation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists