Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Jan 1999 14:17:59 +0100 (CET) | From | MOLNAR Ingo <> | Subject | Re: Re[2]: empty_zero_page definition clash in 2.0.36 |
| |
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/
| |