[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwOg7b80YesMZFXCU1tDS9kk5jBrOJ4+CsQZT7474uRhw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 11:28:48 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
Макс Жуков
<mussitantesmortem@...il.com>, nicolas.ferre@...el.com,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
robert.jarzmik@...e.fr, yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Bob Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] kbuild updates for v4.7-rc1
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> This code:
>
> if (IS_ERR(hash))
> return PTR_ERR(hash);
>
> is obviously "return non-zero" to a kernel developer (because that's
> how our error codes work), but to a compiler that "return PTR_ERR()"
> ends up casting a "long" to an "int" return value.
It doesn't help that gfs2 is using the IS_ERR_VALUE() macro on an
"int", whih is bogus to begin with. It happens to *work*, but by the
time you've cast an error pointer to "int", you've lost enough bits
that "IS_ERR_VALUE()" isn't a valid thing to do. You should just check
against zero (possibly against negative).
But fixing that and just checking against a non-zero int doesn't
actually fix the warning.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists