linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: nobootmem: avoid type warning about alignment value

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20131209165044.cf7de2edb8f4205d5ac02ab0@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 9 Dec 2013 16:50:44 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
Cc:	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: nobootmem: avoid type warning about alignment value

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 08:57:54 -0500 Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com> wrote:

> On Sunday 24 November 2013 10:14 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> > Hello.
> > 
> > On 24-11-2013 3:28, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> > 
> >> Building ARM with NO_BOOTMEM generates below warning. Using min_t
> > 
> >    Where is that below? :-)
> > 
> Damn.. Posted a wrong version of the patch ;-(
> Here is the one with warning message included.
> 
> >From 571dfdf4cf8ac7dfd50bd9b7519717c42824f1c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
> Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 18:16:50 -0500
> Subject: [PATCH] mm: nobootmem: avoid type warning about alignment value
> 
> Building ARM with NO_BOOTMEM generates below warning.
> 
> mm/nobootmem.c: In function _____free_pages_memory___:
> mm/nobootmem.c:88:11: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast
> 
> Using min_t to find the correct alignment avoids the warning.
> 
> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
> ---
>  mm/nobootmem.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/nobootmem.c b/mm/nobootmem.c
> index 2c254d3..8954e43 100644
> --- a/mm/nobootmem.c
> +++ b/mm/nobootmem.c
> @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ static void __init __free_pages_memory(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
>  	int order;
>  
>  	while (start < end) {
> -		order = min(MAX_ORDER - 1UL, __ffs(start));
> +		order = min_t(size_t, MAX_ORDER - 1UL, __ffs(start));
>  

size_t makes no sense.  Neither `order', `MAX_ORDER', 1UL nor __ffs()
have that type.

min() warnings often indicate that the chosen types are inappropriate,
and suppressing them with min_t() should be a last resort.

MAX_ORDER-1UL has type `unsigned long' (yes?) and __ffs() should return
unsigned long (except arch/arc which decided to be different).

Why does it warn?  What's the underlying reason?

--
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/