[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZLrHQgIb8jnm5biX@slm.duckdns.org>
Date:   Fri, 21 Jul 2023 07:58:26 -1000
From:   'Tejun Heo' <tj@...nel.org>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc:     Carlos Bilbao <carlos.bilbao@....com>,
        "josef@...icpanda.com" <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        "cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        amd <amd@...alhost.localdomain>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-iocost: fix seq_printf compile type mismatch error
Hello,
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 08:05:59AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> In any case it is enough to split the enum.
> If you really need unrelated constants to be defined in an enum
> them maybe use a separate enum for each.
> Using (on one line):
> 	enum { name = constant };
Yeah, I'm hoping it won't come down to that. Hopefully, we can limp along
like this until we can always assume the new behavior. Right now, the
problem is that both gcc<13 and gcc=13 have to supported when the two assign
different types to the same enum definitions.
Thanks.
-- 
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists