[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <874m2n7yrf.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 15:15:00 +1100
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: yanjiang.jin@...driver.com, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
paulus@...ba.org, oss@...error.net
Cc: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, yanjiang.jin@...driver.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jinyanjiang@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: cputime: fix a compile warning
yanjiang.jin@...driver.com writes:
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputime.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputime.h
> index 4f60db0..4423e97 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputime.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputime.h
> @@ -228,7 +228,8 @@ static inline cputime_t clock_t_to_cputime(const unsigned long clk)
> return (__force cputime_t) ct;
> }
>
> -#define cputime64_to_clock_t(ct) cputime_to_clock_t((cputime_t)(ct))
> +#define cputime64_to_clock_t(ct) \
> + (__force u64)(cputime_to_clock_t((cputime_t)(ct)))
Given the name of the function is "cputime64 to clock_t", surely we
should be returning a clock_t ?
cheers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists