[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgRDupSBzUX_N_Qo_eaYyDfOH=VTihhikN36cGxCc+jvg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 20:59:47 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, "Jason A . Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
"pedro.falcato@...il.com" <pedro.falcato@...il.com>, Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] minmax: Put all the clamp() definitions together
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 16:21, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Attached is the patch I have in my tree right now - it complains about
> a 'bcachefs' comparison between an 'u16' and a 's64', because I also
> removed the 'implicit integer promotion is ok' logic, because I think
> it's wrong.
>
> I don't think a min(u16,s64) is a valid minimum, for exactly the same
> reason a min(u32,s64) is not valid.
Oh, and I noticed that it screws up the 32-bit case, and that does
need a workaround for that.
So here's a better version. The patch contains one possible fix to
bcachefs for the type confusion there, but I'll wait for Kent to
respond on that.
Linus
View attachment "patch.diff" of type "text/x-patch" (5120 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists