bit ops on unsigned long?

From: Rusty Russell (rusty@rustcorp.com.au)
Date: Fri Mar 15 2002 - 19:52:28 EST

Next message: Jean Tourrilhes: "[QUESTION] Micro-Second timers in kernel ?"
Previous message: Andreas Ferber: "Re: [PATCH] syscall interface for cpu affinity"
Next in thread: Linus Torvalds: "Re: bit ops on unsigned long?"
Reply: Linus Torvalds: "Re: bit ops on unsigned long?"
Reply: Anton Blanchard: "Re: bit ops on unsigned long?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi Linus,

nfs is broken in 2.5 ATM because it does set_bit on an "int".
Can be *please* just bite the bullet and change the prototype on these
ops so we stop seeing the same mistakes over and over?

This and "copy_from_user doesn't return -EFAULT" are the two classic
trivial kernel bugs.

Thanks,
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/

Next message: Jean Tourrilhes: "[QUESTION] Micro-Second timers in kernel ?"
Previous message: Andreas Ferber: "Re: [PATCH] syscall interface for cpu affinity"
Next in thread: Linus Torvalds: "Re: bit ops on unsigned long?"
Reply: Linus Torvalds: "Re: bit ops on unsigned long?"
Reply: Anton Blanchard: "Re: bit ops on unsigned long?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 15 2002 - 22:00:22 EST