On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 16:16 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> On Jul 22, 2013, at 3:03 PM, "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 12:32 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> >> Clean up. Squelch compiler warning:
> >>
> >> linux/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c: In function ‘nfs4_setup_sequence’:
> >> linux/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c:703:2: warning: signed and unsigned type in
> >> conditional expression [-Wsign-compare]
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 2 +-
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> >> index 7b2e008..5913e1d 100644
> >> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> >> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> >> @@ -655,7 +655,7 @@ static int nfs4_setup_sequence(const struct nfs_server *server,
> >>
> >> dprintk("--> %s clp %p session %p sr_slot %d\n",
> >> __func__, session->clp, session, res->sr_slot ?
> >> - res->sr_slot->slot_nr : -1);
> >> + (int)res->sr_slot->slot_nr : -1);
> >>
> >
> > Please convert to make it unsigned, and to use NFS4_NO_SLOT instead of
> > '-1'.
>
> NFS4_NO_SLOT makes sense, but I'm not clear on "make it unsigned".
>
> Leaving the format as "%d" allows NFS4_NO_SLOT to be displayed as "-1". So, something like the following one-liner will address the compiler warning, and leave behavior unchanged:
>
> - res->sr_slot->slot_nr : -1);
> + res->sr_slot->slot_nr : NFS4_NO_SLOT);
>
> That is, unless you prefer NFS4_NO_SLOT displayed in some other way?
Both the slot id and NFS4_NO_SLOT are defined as being of type u32, so
it makes no sense to display a "-1". Just displaying it as 2^32 should
be good enough since this is an obvious "developer only" dprintk.
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer
NetApp
Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx
www.netapp.com
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��w��� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
