Re: Question of resource_size() implementation

[Felipe Balbi]

On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 12:08 +1100, Ben Nizette wrote:
> IOW it's a matter of convention.  Either we could define a single-byte 
> range to be end=start and put the +1 in the resource_size or we could 
> define a single-byte range to be end=start+1 and leave the +1 out of
> resource_size.  The in-kernel convention is the former

ok, thanks for the explanation Ben.

-- 
balbi

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