Re: [PATCH] sparc64: use unsigned long long for u64

From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
To: Ken Chen <kenchen@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	sparclinux <sparclinux@vger.kernel.org>,
	mingo@elte.hu, sfr@canb.auug.org.au,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, paulus@samba.org,
	tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, linux-next@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sparc64: use unsigned long long for u64
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:34:55 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081223173455.GC5957@uranus.ravnborg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b040c32a0812230929u282f0f2bn9221bf2e176d82eb@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 09:29:52AM -0800, Ken Chen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> wrote:
> >> wait, why does this need to be changed?
> >
> > We have:
> >        clocksource_tick.read = tick_ops->get_tick;
> >
> > And clocksource_tick is of type clocksource:
> >
> > struct clocksource {
> >        ...
> >        cycle_t (*read)(void);
> >
> > And cycle_t is:
> > /* clocksource cycle base type */
> > typedef u64 cycle_t;
> >
> > And u64 is now:
> > unsigned long long - thus we need to fix prototype
> > of get_tick to fix the warnings.
> >
> > A cast could do it - but fixing the real problem
> > is better here.
> 
> Sounds good to me.  It was just a question.  Thank you for the explanation.

Hey - it triggered me to take a deeper look at it.
And thanks for actually reading the patch - it's always good that
an extra pair of eyes look over it even it is only quick browsing.

	Sam