Le 23/08/2016 à 11:23, Arnd Bergmann a écrit :
On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 6:20:28 AM CEST Christophe JAILLET wrote:
Le 22/08/2016 à 10:42, Arnd Bergmann a écrit :
[...]
Sorry, but I'm not following the logic here.
[...]
You argue that the two have the same meaning, which I see, but
why is it
On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 6:20:28 AM CEST Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Le 22/08/2016 à 10:42, Arnd Bergmann a écrit :
> > [...]
> > Sorry, but I'm not following the logic here.
> >
> > [...]
> > You argue that the two have the same meaning, which I see, but
> > why is it better than the existing c
Le 22/08/2016 à 10:42, Arnd Bergmann a écrit :
[...]
Sorry, but I'm not following the logic here.
[...]
You argue that the two have the same meaning, which I see, but
why is it better than the existing code?
Arnd
Hi,
sorry if my explanation was unclear.
What I mean is that if "sizeo
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 11:20:25 PM CEST Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> The 2nd parameter of 'find_first_zero_bit' is the number of bits to search.
> In this case, we are passing 'sizeof(vt8500_ports_in_use)'.
> 'vt8500_ports_in_use' is an 'unsigned long'. So the sizeof is likely to
> return 4.
>
The 2nd parameter of 'find_first_zero_bit' is the number of bits to search.
In this case, we are passing 'sizeof(vt8500_ports_in_use)'.
'vt8500_ports_in_use' is an 'unsigned long'. So the sizeof is likely to
return 4.
A few lines below, we check if it is below VT8500_MAX_PORTS, which is 6.
It is
5 matches
Mail list logo
