|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
On 11/12/2013 02:52:57 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 12:15 +0900, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> Talking about "ideal implementation" is also singularly stupid. > > I just want the various arch implementations to match > the docs. I know that's stupid. > > Maybe if you really don't want to discuss things, you > should fix the documentation.E.g. by adding a paragraph that the actual allowed range of indices may bea subset of "unsigned long" on some architectures.Or if we know that everyone supports at least 31 resp. 63 bits, that it may be limited to 31 resp. 63 unsigned bits, which is the positive range subset of"long".
If this ever turns into an actual patch to this file, could you cc: me on it so I can marshal it upstream? (Not enough domain expertise for me to produce it myself...)
Thanks, Rob-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Linux Kernel] [Kernel Newbies] [x86 Platform Driver] [Share Photos] [Security] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Linux FS] [Photo] [Yosemite] [Yosemite Discussion] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Samba] [Video 4 Linux] [Device Mapper] [Linux Resources]