On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 10:03 AM, H. Peter Anvin <h...@zytor.com> wrote: > On 12/26/2013 09:59 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >>> but it would seem to give the wrong types when __BITS_PER_LONG in >>> userspace is 32. >>> >> >> For x32, __BITS_PER_LONG is 64, not 32. If __BITS_PER_LONG >> is 32, my patch doesn't change anything. If it works before, >> it still works. If it is broken before, it remains broken. >> >> I prefer my first patch, which is less clutter. But I can't guarantee >> it is correct for all x3-like ABIs. My second patch has more >> clutter, but it has no impact on other ABIs. >> > > It's rather simple to prove, which is to consider the generic definition > of __kernel_[u]long_t. >
Then. I withdrew my second alternative with __BITS_PER_LONG == 64 check.. Please use my first alternative for all my kernel_long_t and kernel_ulong_t patches. Thanks. -- H.J. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
