Dear Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD, In message <20090719094713.ge31...@game.jcrosoft.org> you wrote: > On 15:58 Tue 07 Jul , Simon Kagstrom wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Simon Kagstrom <simon.kagst...@netinsight.net> > > --- > > include/asm-arm/bitops.h | 4 ++-- > > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > NACK > > the test_and_set_bit and co must be endianless specific > which is not the case here > > rename it ____atomic_test_and_set_bit if you want but not test_and_set_bit
Please explain. What has atomicity dto do with the fact if the implementation depends on the byte order or not? I agree that such macros should be independet of the byteorder, but this applies to test_and_set_bit as well as to ____atomic_test_and_set_bit - why should adding "____atomic_" here make such a difference? Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de I am a computer. I am dumber than any human and smarter than any ad- ministrator. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
