From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qg0-f45.google.com (mail-qg0-f45.google.com [209.85.192.45]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28F616B0038 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 06:50:38 -0500 (EST) Received: by qgeb1 with SMTP id b1so111929606qge.1 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:50:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qg0-x22c.google.com (mail-qg0-x22c.google.com. [2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22c]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 111si10859700qgx.29.2015.11.23.03.50.36 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:50:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by qgeb1 with SMTP id b1so111929274qge.1 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:50:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 06:50:33 -0500 From: Jeff Layton Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix up sparse warning in gfpflags_allow_blocking Message-ID: <20151123065033.0a8bdc00@tlielax.poochiereds.net> In-Reply-To: <20151123095048.GB21436@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1448030459-20990-1-git-send-email-jeff.layton@primarydata.com> <20151123095048.GB21436@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 10:50:49 +0100 Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 20-11-15 09:40:59, Jeff Layton wrote: > > sparse says: > > > > include/linux/gfp.h:274:26: warning: incorrect type in return expression (different base types) > > include/linux/gfp.h:274:26: expected bool > > include/linux/gfp.h:274:26: got restricted gfp_t > > > > ...add a forced cast to silence the warning. > > > > Cc: Mel Gorman > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton > > --- > > include/linux/gfp.h | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h > > index 6523109e136d..8942af0813e3 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/gfp.h > > +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h > > @@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ static inline int gfpflags_to_migratetype(const gfp_t gfp_flags) > > > > static inline bool gfpflags_allow_blocking(const gfp_t gfp_flags) > > { > > - return gfp_flags & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM; > > + return (bool __force)(gfp_flags & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM); > > Wouldn't (gfp_flags & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM) != 0 be easier/better to read? > Yeah, good point. Andrew, do you want me to respin that? -- Jeff Layton -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org