Re: Re[2]: empty_zero_page definition clash in 2.0.36

MOLNAR Ingo (mingo@chiara.csoma.elte.hu)
Thu, 28 Jan 1999 14:17:59 +0100 (CET)


On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Evgeny Stambulchik wrote:

> > (just pedantic, but the right fix is to make it (char *) not (unsigned
> > char *), because this is how it was defined and used previously.
>
> Hmm, I also used signed at the beginning, but then looked into 2.2.0 sources and
> there it's unsigned...

it's inconsistent in 2.2 (look at the COMMAND_LINE deefine). But it doesnt
really matter, i said i'm pedantic :)

-- mingo

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/