On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 16:21, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Attached is the patch I have in my tree right now - it complains about
> a 'bcachefs' comparison between an 'u16' and a 's64', because I also
> removed the 'implicit integer promotion is ok' logic, because I think
> it's wrong.
>
> I don't think a min(u16,s64) is a valid minimum, for exactly the same
> reason a min(u32,s64) is not valid.

Oh, and I noticed that it screws up the 32-bit case, and that does
need a workaround for that.

So here's a better version. The patch contains one possible fix to
bcachefs for the type confusion there, but I'll wait for Kent to
respond on that.

             Linus