[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2a4555bf640e4bc4b76e1ae14e5cb5e1@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 08:16:59 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Al Viro' <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
CC: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
gus Gusenleitner Klaus <gus@...a.com>,
Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"dsahern@...nel.org" <dsahern@...nel.org>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: AW: [PATCH] amd64: Fix csum_partial_copy_generic()
From: Al Viro
> Sent: 22 October 2023 12:12
>
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 11:03:39AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
>
> > > + return -1;
> >
> > If you are going to return -1 the return type should be signed.
>
> It's a perfectly valid C to have return -1 in a function that
> returns unsigned long long (or any other unsigned type, really)...
It is also valid C to return a pointer :-)
I also suspect that sparse will complain massively and
require a lot of the horrid (__force) casts.
(They should really be a function so that they are completely
ignored by the compiler - unless the compiler needs a cast as well.)
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists