* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:

quoted text
> Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>  which is the same. set_cpu_cap() is indeed the cleaner form to do this
>>>  so your patch is correct as a cleanup.
>> set_cpu_cap is right
>> ==
>> set_bit(X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC, &c->x86_capability); ===> is wrong
>> should be
>> set_bit(X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC, c->x86_capability);
>>
>> x86_capability is a array ...
>
> For an array, the & is optional and has no effect.
>
> So they mean the same thing.

yeah. It's unnecessary entropy nevertheless and i've cleaned it all up 
in x86.git.

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