On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:56:12 +0530 (IST) > Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- a/include/linux/kernel.h > > +++ b/include/linux/kernel.h > > @@ -30,6 +30,9 @@ extern const char linux_proc_banner[]; > > #define LLONG_MIN (-LLONG_MAX - 1) > > #define ULLONG_MAX (~0ULL) > > > > +#define U16_MAX ((u16) ~0U) > > +#define U32_MAX ((u32) ~0U) > > + > > hm, I'd have thought that there's a risk of gcc warnings here, forcing > 0xffffffff into a u16, but apparently not. > > Still, I think it'd be tidier here to tell the truth and use plain > old 0xffff and 0xffffffff? Hmm, that does make sense, actually -- in fact that's the only _really_ correct way to define u32_max / u16_max, I'd say. I probably got confused seeing those bad examples in reiserfs and tcp_illinois ;-) Thanks. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
