Re: [PATCH v3] spi: spi-mpc512x-psc: Fix an unsigned comparison that can never be negative

[Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Aug 06, 2023 at 02:07:33PM +0530, coolrrsh@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Rajeshwar R Shinde <coolrrsh@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> In struct mpc512x_psc_spi, the variable 'irq' is declared as an unsigned int.
> The comparison of variable 'irq'  with signed int operand is incorrect. Also,
> the return value from the call to platform_get_irq(pdev,0) is int and it is 
> assigned to an unsigned int variable 'irq', thus redeclaring the type of 
> variable 'irq' to signed int.
> 
> This fixes warning such as:
> drivers/spi/spi-mpc512x-psc.c:493:5-13: 
> WARNING: Unsigned expression compared with zero: mps -> irq < 0
> 
> ---
>  drivers/spi/spi-mpc512x-psc.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-mpc512x-psc.c b/drivers/spi/spi-mpc512x-psc.c
> index 99aeef28a..5cecca1be 100644
> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-mpc512x-psc.c
> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-mpc512x-psc.c
> @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ struct mpc512x_psc_spi {
>  	int type;
>  	void __iomem *psc;
>  	struct mpc512x_psc_fifo __iomem *fifo;
> -	unsigned int irq;
> +	int irq;
>  	u8 bits_per_word;
>  	u32 mclk_rate;
>  
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-kernel-mentees mailing list
> Linux-kernel-mentees@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-kernel-mentees

Hi,

This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
kernel tree.

You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
as indicated below:

- This looks like a new version of a previously submitted patch, but you
  did not list below the --- line any changes from the previous version.
  Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the
  kernel file, Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what
  needs to be done here to properly describe this.

If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
from other developers.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot