On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 5:14 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 10:38:13PM +0530, Niranjan Dighe wrote:
>> The third argument to function kportal_memhog_alloc is expected to
>> be gfp_t whereas the actual argument was unsigned int. Fix this by
>> explicitly typecasting to gfp_t
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Niranjan Dighe <niranjan.dighe@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/module.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/module.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/module.c
>> index 96d9d46..9c79f6e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/module.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/module.c
>> @@ -268,7 +268,7 @@ static int libcfs_ioctl_int(struct cfs_psdev_file *pfile, unsigned long cmd,
>> /* XXX The ioc_flags is not GFP flags now, need to be fixed */
>> err = kportal_memhog_alloc(pfile->private_data,
>> data->ioc_count,
>> - data->ioc_flags);
>> + (__force gfp_t)data->ioc_flags);
>
> No, please fix the type to be correct properly, like the comment says
> needs to be done.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Hello Greg,
I could see that the ioc_flags member of the struct libcfs_ioctl_data
is used as gfp_t only in the
case of the ioctl IOC_LIBCFS_MEMHOG. I can think of following ways to
correct it -
1. Create a union that has 2 different types encapsulated, something like this -
union {
__u32 ioc_flags;
gfp_t alloc_flags;
}flags;
Because, the ioc_flags seems to be used in different contexts at
different places throughout the
drivers/staging/lustre directory.
2. Is it OK to hardcode the appropriate gfp_t flags for the
IOC_LIBCFS_MEMHOG, as the userspace
seems to be taking the decision about the page allocation
zone/strategy, is this what is intended?
Regards,
Niranjan Dighe
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
