Re: [PATCH v4 00/24] Introduce little endian bitops

[Akinobu Mita]

2011/1/17 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> This problem is not touched.
>
> So why not? The thing is supposed to be a cleanup, but it generates
> uglier code and more lines added than removed. Why should I pull
> something like that?

Changing *_bit_le() to take "void *" instead of "unsigned long *"
makes this patch series acceptable?
Or do we also need to change *_bit_le() to handle unaligned address
correctly?  (i.e. not only long aligned address but also byte aligned
address)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/