Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 1 Feb 2006 19:19:57 +0000 | | From | Russell King <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/12] generic *_bit() |
| |
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:07:28AM -0800, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > Christoph Hellwig wrote on Wednesday, February 01, 2006 10:03 AM > > > Akinobu Mita wrote on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 7:29 PM > > > > This patch introduces the C-language equivalents of the functions below: > > > > > > > > - atomic operation: > > > > void set_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr); > > > > void clear_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr); > > > > void change_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr); > > > > int test_and_set_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr); > > > > int test_and_clear_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr); > > > > int test_and_change_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr); > > > > > > I wonder why you did not make these functions take volatile > > > unsigned int * address argument? > > > > Because they are defined to operate on arrays of unsigned long > > I think these should be defined to operate on arrays of unsigned int. > Bit is a bit, no matter how many byte you load (8/16/32/64), you can > only operate on just one bit.
Invalid assumption, from the point of view of endianness across different architectures. Consider where bit 0 is for a LE and BE unsigned long * vs a LE and BE unsigned char *.
-- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |