Quoting r. Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> No, real architectures where long long and long are both 64 bits
Thought so.
--
MST
___
openib-general mailing list
openib-general@openib.org
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscr
>> Yeah, I guess so. I was being anal about archs where u64 ==
>> unsigned long, but I don't think it actually matters.
> And long long 128 bit? Should be fine even then.
No, real architectures where long long and long are both 64 bits, but
u64 is typedef'ed to just long. But leaving out the
> Wouldnt 0x8LL be enough?
Yeah, I guess so. I was being anal about archs where u64 == unsigned
long, but I don't think it actually matters.
- R.
___
openib-general mailing list
openib-general@openib.org
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/ope
Quoting r. Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Subject: [PATCH] IB/sdp: Fix warning on 32-bit architectures
>
> The current definition of SDP_OP_RECV leads to:
>
> drivers/infiniband/ulp/sdp/sdp_bcopy.c:208: warning: integer constant is
> too large for "long" type
>
> on 32-bit architectur
