Subject: [PATCH] mm: nobootmem: avoid type warning about alignment value

From: [email-masked] (Santosh Shilimkar)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:27:44 -0500

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