On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:06:56 -0400 Josef Bacik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 10:02:36AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 09:25 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > > Looking through everything I came to the conclusion that we don't really
> > > need
> > > th
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:55:49 -0400 (EDT) "John Anthony Kazos Jr." <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +#define upper_32_bits(n) (sizeof(n) == 8 ? (u64)(n) >> 32 : 0)
It's very unclear what type this returns, in terms of both size and
signedness. Perhaps it always returns a u64, dunno. If it does, tha
From: John Anthony Kazos Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Add helper functions "upper_32_bits" and "lower_32_bits" to
to allow 64-bit integers to be separated into
their 32-bit upper and lower halves without promoting integers, without
stretching sign bits, and without generating compiler warnings when
On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 12:23:45AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:06:56 -0400 Josef Bacik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 10:02:36AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 09:25 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > > > Looking through ever
> > +#define lower_32_bits(n) (sizeof(n) == 8 ? (u32)(n) : (n))
>
> n&0x would be simpler.
>
> Do we actually have any call for this?
The only case for all of this we care about is sector_t, which is one
type, with specific properties (eg always being positive). The rest is
over-engineer
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:01:47 +0100 Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > +#define lower_32_bits(n) (sizeof(n) == 8 ? (u32)(n) : (n))
> >
> > n&0x would be simpler.
> >
> > Do we actually have any call for this?
>
> The only case for all of this we care about is sector_t, which is on
6 matches
Mail list logo
