[PATCH] 10: 2.5.29-wdt977

[PATCH] 10: 2.5.29-wdt977

[Russell King]

This patch has been verified to apply cleanly to 2.5.30

Bitops are used with on the timer_alive variable.  Therefore, timer_alive
needs to be "unsigned long" not "int".

 drivers/char/wdt977.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertion, 1 deletion

diff -urN orig/drivers/char/wdt977.c linux/drivers/char/wdt977.c
--- orig/drivers/char/wdt977.c	Sat May 25 23:13:25 2002
+++ linux/drivers/char/wdt977.c	Wed Jun 12 14:13:47 2002
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@
 
 static	int timeout = DEFAULT_TIMEOUT*60;	/* TO in seconds from user */
 static	int timeoutM = DEFAULT_TIMEOUT;		/* timeout in minutes */
-static	int timer_alive;
+static	unsigned long timer_alive;
 static	int testmode;
 
 MODULE_PARM(timeout, "i");

Re: [PATCH] 10: 2.5.29-wdt977

[Rob Radez]

On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 07:16:18PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> diff -urN orig/drivers/char/wdt977.c linux/drivers/char/wdt977.c
> --- orig/drivers/char/wdt977.c	Sat May 25 23:13:25 2002
> +++ linux/drivers/char/wdt977.c	Wed Jun 12 14:13:47 2002
> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@
>  
>  static	int timeout = DEFAULT_TIMEOUT*60;	/* TO in seconds from user */
>  static	int timeoutM = DEFAULT_TIMEOUT;		/* timeout in minutes */
> -static	int timer_alive;
> +static	unsigned long timer_alive;
>  static	int testmode;
>  
>  MODULE_PARM(timeout, "i");

Not sure how much people will care, but this (and other funtastic) changes
are in my set of watchdog patches that I'll be making a big push to get
applied soon.  I haven't updated them to 2.4.19 or 2.5.30 yet but I'm hoping
to soon.  When I do, they'll be up at http://osinvestor.com/wd/ .

Regards,
Rob Radez

Re: [PATCH] 10: 2.5.29-wdt977

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 07:16:18PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> Bitops are used with on the timer_alive variable.  Therefore, timer_alive
> needs to be "unsigned long" not "int".

How about:
> -static	int timer_alive;
> +static	bitmap_member(timer_alive, 1);

In this way it is obviously used for bitops.

Rusty's more informative DECLARE_BITMAP (IIRC) patch has not yet been 
accepted by Linus, otherwise it would better tell people that this is 
actually a macro without the need to parse the declaration first.

	Sam