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@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>