On Fri, 2016-09-02 at 08:59 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> How about the following:
>
> dev_set_uevent_suppress() expects a boolean as second argument. Make
> this clear by passing true/false instead of 1/0 as the second
> argument.
dev_set_uevent_suppress() doesn't currently expect a boolean.
On 09/02/2016 08:41 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Fri, 2016-09-02 at 13:41 +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 09/01/16 17:51, Joe Perches wrote:
On Fri, 2016-09-02 at 00:47 +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 09/01/16 13:11, Joe Perches wrote:
Assigning an int to a bitfield:1 can lose precision.
Chang
On Fri, 2016-09-02 at 13:41 +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 09/01/16 17:51, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Fri, 2016-09-02 at 00:47 +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > On 09/01/16 13:11, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > Assigning an int to a bitfield:1 can lose precision.
> > > > Change the caller argument
On 09/01/16 17:51, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-09-02 at 00:47 +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 09/01/16 13:11, Joe Perches wrote:
>>>
>>> Assigning an int to a bitfield:1 can lose precision.
>>> Change the caller argument uses from 1/0 to true/false.
>> Hello Joe,
>
> Hi Bart.
>
>> Can you
On Fri, 2016-09-02 at 00:47 +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 09/01/16 13:11, Joe Perches wrote:
> >
> > Assigning an int to a bitfield:1 can lose precision.
> > Change the caller argument uses from 1/0 to true/false.
> Hello Joe,
Hi Bart.
> Can you clarify how assigning 0 or 1 to a one-bit bit
On 09/01/16 13:11, Joe Perches wrote:
> Assigning an int to a bitfield:1 can lose precision.
> Change the caller argument uses from 1/0 to true/false.
Hello Joe,
Can you clarify how assigning 0 or 1 to a one-bit bitfield can cause a
loss of precision?
Thanks,
Bart.
Assigning an int to a bitfield:1 can lose precision.
Change the caller argument uses from 1/0 to true/false.
No change to objects.
Signed-off-by: Joe Perches
---
block/genhd.c | 4 ++--
block/partition-generic.c | 4 ++--
drivers/acpi/dock.c | 2 +-
drivers/s390/cio/chsc
7 matches
Mail list logo
