Re: [PATCH 1/1] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: v3.1

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> Well yes, but DMA_BIT_MASK(0) invokes undefined behaviour, generates a
> compiler warning and evaluates to 0xffffffffffffffff (with my setup).
>
> That won't be a problem in practice, but it is strictly wrong and doesn't set
> a good exmaple for the children ;)
>   

It's interesting that it doesn't seem to be possible to define this
without invoking some undefined behaviour.  But a device that supports 0
bits of DMA address probably isn't terribly concerned about this - it's
certainly better than making 64 bit masks warty.

    J
-
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/