Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: bit ops on unsigned long? | Date | Mon, 25 Mar 2002 18:07:07 +1100 |
| |
In message <200203250621.g2P6LG023329@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca> you write: > > These changed are required because otherwise you try to do set_bit on > > something not aligned as a long on all archs. > > But of course. I'm not denying that. Naturally the type should be > changed. I thought that was obvious so I didn't bother agreeing. But > in fact, it already *is* aligned on a long boundary. Better, in > fact. It's aligned on a 16 byte boundary. Even though the type was > __u32.
I'm confused:
@@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ struct minor_list { int major; - __u32 bits[8]; + unsigned long bits[256 / BITS_PER_LONG]; struct minor_list *next; };
How, exactly, did "bits" end up on a 16-bute boundary before this patch?
Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - 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/
| |