On 12/06/2011 10:38 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> It doesn't cause any runtime problems in this case, but bitfields should
> be unsigned. This file gets included a lot so it generates thousands of
> Sparse warnings about dubious one-bit signed bitfields.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h
> index 0ecd1a9..114dca1 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h
> @@ -40,8 +40,8 @@ struct thread_info {
> */
> __u8 supervisor_stack[0];
> #endif
> - int sig_on_uaccess_error:1;
> - int uaccess_err:1; /* uaccess failed */
> + unsigned int sig_on_uaccess_error:1;
> + unsigned int uaccess_err:1; /* uaccess failed */
> };
>
Can bitfields legally be declared "bool"? If so it's probably the right
thing, really...
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
