On Sun, 12 Jan 2014, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> This patch makes their types match exactly with x86's definitions of
> the same, which is the basic problem: on ARM, they all took "int" values
> and returned "int"s, which leads to min() in nobootmem.c complaining.
>
>
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
This patch makes their types match exactly with x86's definitions of
the same, which is the basic problem: on ARM, they all took int values
and returned ints, which leads to min() in nobootmem.c complaining.
arch/arm/include/asm/bitops.h
On Monday 13 January 2014 06:33 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 03:31:28PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:27:44 -0500 Santosh Shilimkar
>> wrote:
>>
It seems to me to be absolutely silly to have code introduce a warning
yet push the
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 03:31:28PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:27:44 -0500 Santosh Shilimkar
> wrote:
>
> > > It seems to me to be absolutely silly to have code introduce a warning
> > > yet push the fix for the warning via a completely different tree...
> > >
> > I
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:27:44 -0500 Santosh Shilimkar
wrote:
> > It seems to me to be absolutely silly to have code introduce a warning
> > yet push the fix for the warning via a completely different tree...
> >
> I mixed it up. Sorry. Some how I thought there was some other build
>
On Monday 13 January 2014 07:37 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:42:00AM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On Sunday 12 January 2014 05:59 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 08:02:30PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Monday 09
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:42:00AM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Sunday 12 January 2014 05:59 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 08:02:30PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> >> On Monday 09 December 2013 07:54 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >>> The
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:42:00AM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Sunday 12 January 2014 05:59 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 08:02:30PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Monday 09 December 2013 07:54 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
The underlying
On Monday 13 January 2014 07:37 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:42:00AM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Sunday 12 January 2014 05:59 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 08:02:30PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Monday 09 December
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:27:44 -0500 Santosh Shilimkar santosh.shilim...@ti.com
wrote:
It seems to me to be absolutely silly to have code introduce a warning
yet push the fix for the warning via a completely different tree...
I mixed it up. Sorry. Some how I thought there was some other
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 03:31:28PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:27:44 -0500 Santosh Shilimkar
santosh.shilim...@ti.com wrote:
It seems to me to be absolutely silly to have code introduce a warning
yet push the fix for the warning via a completely different tree...
On Monday 13 January 2014 06:33 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 03:31:28PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:27:44 -0500 Santosh Shilimkar
santosh.shilim...@ti.com wrote:
It seems to me to be absolutely silly to have code introduce a warning
yet
On Sunday 12 January 2014 10:42 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Sunday 12 January 2014 05:59 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 08:02:30PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>> On Monday 09 December 2013 07:54 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
The underlying
On Sunday 12 January 2014 05:59 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 08:02:30PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On Monday 09 December 2013 07:54 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> The underlying reason is that - as I've already explained - ARM's __ffs()
>>> differs
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 08:02:30PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Monday 09 December 2013 07:54 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > The underlying reason is that - as I've already explained - ARM's __ffs()
> > differs from other architectures in that it ends up being an int, whereas
> >
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 08:02:30PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Monday 09 December 2013 07:54 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
The underlying reason is that - as I've already explained - ARM's __ffs()
differs from other architectures in that it ends up being an int, whereas
almost
On Sunday 12 January 2014 05:59 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 08:02:30PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Monday 09 December 2013 07:54 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
The underlying reason is that - as I've already explained - ARM's __ffs()
differs from
On Sunday 12 January 2014 10:42 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Sunday 12 January 2014 05:59 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 08:02:30PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Monday 09 December 2013 07:54 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
The underlying reason is that
;>>>
>>> Damn.. Posted a wrong version of the patch ;-(
>>> Here is the one with warning message included.
>>>
>>> >From 571dfdf4cf8ac7dfd50bd9b7519717c42824f1c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Santosh Shilimkar
>>> Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 18:
ed.
> >
> > >From 571dfdf4cf8ac7dfd50bd9b7519717c42824f1c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Santosh Shilimkar
> > Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 18:16:50 -0500
> > Subject: [PATCH] mm: nobootmem: avoid type warning about alignment value
> >
> > Building ARM wit
in_t
> >
> >Where is that below? :-)
> >
> Damn.. Posted a wrong version of the patch ;-(
> Here is the one with warning message included.
>
> >From 571dfdf4cf8ac7dfd50bd9b7519717c42824f1c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Santosh Shilimkar
> Date: S
1dfdf4cf8ac7dfd50bd9b7519717c42824f1c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Santosh Shilimkar
>> Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 18:16:50 -0500
>> Subject: [PATCH] mm: nobootmem: avoid type warning about alignment value
>>
>> Building ARM with NO_BOOTMEM generates below warn
-0500
Subject: [PATCH] mm: nobootmem: avoid type warning about alignment value
Building ARM with NO_BOOTMEM generates below warning.
mm/nobootmem.c: In function ‘__free_pages_memory’:
mm/nobootmem.c:88:11: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a
cast
Using min_t to find
: nobootmem: avoid type warning about alignment value
Building ARM with NO_BOOTMEM generates below warning.
mm/nobootmem.c: In function _free_pages_memory___:
mm/nobootmem.c:88:11: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a
cast
Using min_t to find the correct alignment avoids
santosh.shilim...@ti.com
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 18:16:50 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] mm: nobootmem: avoid type warning about alignment value
Building ARM with NO_BOOTMEM generates below warning.
mm/nobootmem.c: In function _free_pages_memory___:
mm/nobootmem.c:88:11: warning: comparison
:00 2001
From: Santosh Shilimkar santosh.shilim...@ti.com
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 18:16:50 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] mm: nobootmem: avoid type warning about alignment value
Building ARM with NO_BOOTMEM generates below warning.
mm/nobootmem.c: In function _free_pages_memory___:
mm/nobootmem.c
rning. Using min_t
> >
> >Where is that below? :-)
> >
> Damn.. Posted a wrong version of the patch ;-(
> Here is the one with warning message included.
>
> From 571dfdf4cf8ac7dfd50bd9b7519717c42824f1c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Santosh Shilimkar
> Date: Sat,
e patch ;-(
Here is the one with warning message included.
>From 571dfdf4cf8ac7dfd50bd9b7519717c42824f1c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Santosh Shilimkar
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 18:16:50 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] mm: nobootmem: avoid type warning about alignment value
Building ARM with NO_BOOTME
message included.
From 571dfdf4cf8ac7dfd50bd9b7519717c42824f1c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Santosh Shilimkar santosh.shilim...@ti.com
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 18:16:50 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] mm: nobootmem: avoid type warning about alignment value
Building ARM with NO_BOOTMEM generates below warning
? :-)
Damn.. Posted a wrong version of the patch ;-(
Here is the one with warning message included.
From 571dfdf4cf8ac7dfd50bd9b7519717c42824f1c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Santosh Shilimkar santosh.shilim...@ti.com
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 18:16:50 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] mm: nobootmem: avoid type
Hello.
On 24-11-2013 3:28, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
Building ARM with NO_BOOTMEM generates below warning. Using min_t
Where is that below? :-)
to find the correct alignment avoids the warning.
Cc: Tejun Heo
Cc: Andrew Morton
Signed-off-by: Santosh Shilimkar
WBR, Sergei
--
To
Hello.
On 24-11-2013 3:28, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
Building ARM with NO_BOOTMEM generates below warning. Using min_t
Where is that below? :-)
to find the correct alignment avoids the warning.
Cc: Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org
Cc: Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org
Signed-off-by:
Building ARM with NO_BOOTMEM generates below warning. Using min_t
to find the correct alignment avoids the warning.
Cc: Tejun Heo
Cc: Andrew Morton
Signed-off-by: Santosh Shilimkar
---
mm/nobootmem.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/mm/nobootmem.c
Building ARM with NO_BOOTMEM generates below warning. Using min_t
to find the correct alignment avoids the warning.
Cc: Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org
Cc: Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org
Signed-off-by: Santosh Shilimkar santosh.shilim...@ti.com
---
mm/nobootmem.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1
34 matches
Mail list logo
