From: Ryan Cumming <ryan@spitfire.gotdns.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC, 2.6] a simple FIFO implementation
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:07:57 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.7
Cc: andrea@novell.com, stelian@popies.net, hugh@veritas.com,
       bruce@andrew.cmu.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20040917154834.GA3180@crusoe.alcove-fr> <200409171514.38316.ryan@spitfire.gotdns.org> <20040917153526.26cc4084.akpm@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <20040917153526.26cc4084.akpm@osdl.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
  boundary="nextPart1799397.km9fFVmYiS";
  protocol="application/pgp-signature";
  micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200409171708.00641.ryan@spitfire.gotdns.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1181
Lines: 42

--nextPart1799397.km9fFVmYiS
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Friday 17 September 2004 15:35, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Ryan Cumming <ryan@spitfire.gotdns.org> wrote:
> > How does this look?
> >
> >  ...
> > +static inline unsigned long __attribute_pure__ roundup_pow_of_two(int =
x)
> > +{
> > + return (1UL << fls(x));
> > +}
>
> Any reason for making the argument an integer, rather than unsigned long?

I originally had it as unsigned long, but I changed it to match what fls()=
=20
takes. Would it be better as an unsigned long despite that?

=2DRyan

--nextPart1799397.km9fFVmYiS
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBBS3xgW4yVCW5p+qYRAiKSAKChjuluVhM//qMdVnwnGSMlYU4l3ACdHU+b
Ynok08K4G7D0WXNCkwAwEcU=
=iqpJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart1799397.km9fFVmYiS--
-
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/