On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:28:48PM +0100, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > > - root->gfp_mask &= (1 << ROOT_TAG_SHIFT) - 1; > > + root->gfp_mask &= (__force gfp_t)((1 << ROOT_TAG_SHIFT) - 1); > > IMO, it would be better to define something for that in radix-tree.h, > like it has been done for ROOT_IS_IDR. If we were keeping the radix tree around, I'd agree, but the point of the rest of this patch set is replacing it ;-) I should probably have just dropped this patch, to be honest.
