[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130628153828.GA24371@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:38:28 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
mm-commits@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: mmotm 2013-06-27-16-36 uploaded (wait event common)
On 06/28, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 23:06:43 -0700 Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > >> My builds are littered with hundreds of warnings like this one:
> > >>
> > >> drivers/tty/tty_ioctl.c:220:6: warning: the omitted middle operand in ?: will always be 'true', suggest explicit middle operand [-Wparentheses]
> > >>
> > >> I guess due to this line from wait_event_common():
> > >>
> > >> + __ret = __wait_no_timeout(tout) ?: (tout) ?: 1;
> > >>
> I added the following to linux-next today:
> (sorry Randy, I forgot the Reported-by:, Andrew please add)
>
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 16:52:58 +1000
> Subject: [PATCH] fix warnings from ?: operator in wait.h
Argh. This patch strikes again.
Thanks, and sorry. And please help!
I am not sure I understand. Since when gcc dislikes '?:' ?
/bin/grep shows a lot of users of 'X ?: Y' shortcut?
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> ---
> include/linux/wait.h | 18 ++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/wait.h b/include/linux/wait.h
> index 1c08a6c..f3b793d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/wait.h
> +++ b/include/linux/wait.h
> @@ -197,7 +197,12 @@ wait_queue_head_t *bit_waitqueue(void *, int);
> for (;;) { \
> __ret = prepare_to_wait_event(&wq, &__wait, state); \
> if (condition) { \
> - __ret = __wait_no_timeout(tout) ?: __tout ?: 1; \
> + __ret = __wait_no_timeout(tout); \
> + if (!__ret) { \
> + __ret = __tout; \
> + if (!__ret) \
> + __ret = 1; \
> + } \
> break; \
> } \
> \
> @@ -218,9 +223,14 @@ wait_queue_head_t *bit_waitqueue(void *, int);
> #define wait_event_common(wq, condition, state, tout) \
> ({ \
> long __ret; \
> - if (condition) \
> - __ret = __wait_no_timeout(tout) ?: (tout) ?: 1; \
> - else \
> + if (condition) { \
> + __ret = __wait_no_timeout(tout); \
> + if (!__ret) { \
> + __ret = (tout); \
> + if (!__ret) \
> + __ret = 1; \
> + } \
> + } else \
> __ret = __wait_event_common(wq, condition, state, tout);\
> __ret; \
> })
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell sfr@...b.auug.org.au
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists