From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-gg0-f178.google.com (mail-gg0-f178.google.com [209.85.161.178]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8E3F6B0035 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:27:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-gg0-f178.google.com with SMTP id q2so800433ggc.9 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 06:27:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from arroyo.ext.ti.com (arroyo.ext.ti.com. [192.94.94.40]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 25si20839866yhd.227.2014.01.13.06.27.55 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 13 Jan 2014 06:27:56 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52D3F7E0.3030206@ti.com> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:27:44 -0500 From: Santosh Shilimkar MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: nobootmem: avoid type warning about alignment value References: <1385249326-9089-1-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <529217C7.6030304@cogentembedded.com> <52935762.1080409@ti.com> <20131209165044.cf7de2edb8f4205d5ac02ab0@linux-foundation.org> <20131210005454.GX4360@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <52A66826.7060204@ti.com> <20140112105958.GA9791@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <52D2B7C8.4060103@ti.com> <20140113123733.GU15937@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20140113123733.GU15937@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Andrew Morton , Tejun Heo , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sergei Shtylyov , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Monday 13 January 2014 07:37 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:42:00AM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >> On Sunday 12 January 2014 05:59 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 08:02:30PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >>>> On Monday 09 December 2013 07:54 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >>>>> The underlying reason is that - as I've already explained - ARM's __ffs() >>>>> differs from other architectures in that it ends up being an int, whereas >>>>> almost everyone else is unsigned long. >>>>> >>>>> The fix is to fix ARMs __ffs() to conform to other architectures. >>>>> >>>> I was just about to cross-post your reply here. Obviously I didn't think >>>> this far when I made $subject fix. >>>> >>>> So lets ignore the $subject patch which is not correct. Sorry for noise >>> >>> Well, here we are, a month on, and this still remains unfixed despite >>> my comments pointing to what the problem is. So, here's a patch to fix >>> this problem the correct way. I took the time to add some comments to >>> these functions as I find that I wonder about their return values, and >>> these comments make the patch a little larger than it otherwise would be. >>> >> The $subject warning fix [1] is already picked by Andrew with your ack >> and its in his queue [2] >> >>> This patch makes their types match exactly with x86's definitions of >>> the same, which is the basic problem: on ARM, they all took "int" values >>> and returned "int"s, which leads to min() in nobootmem.c complaining. >>> >> Not sure if you missed the thread but the right fix was picked. Ofcourse >> you do have additional clz optimisation in updated patch and some comments >> on those functions. > > The problem here is that the patch fixing this is going via akpm's tree > (why?) yet you want the code which introduces the warning to be merged > via my tree. > > It seems to me to be absolutely silly to have code introduce a warning > yet push the fix for the warning via a completely different tree... > I mixed it up. Sorry. Some how I thought there was some other build configuration thrown the same warning with memblock series and hence suggested the patch to go via Andrew's tree. Regards, Santosh -- 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