Re: [PATCH] af_key: suppress a warning for 64k pages.

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: <sfr@...>
Cc: <netdev@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - 12:08 am

From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:59:54 +1100

...

I'm not so sure ifdef'ing things up all over the place is the way to
solve this.  It makes the code ultra ugly.

I think we should retain the check, but modify it so that GCC knows we
understand that it's OK if it is always false.  Perhaps a simple (u32)
cast on the left branch of the comparison is sufficient?
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH] af_key: suppress a warning for 64k pages., Stephen Rothwell, (Tue Oct 30, 11:59 pm)
Re: [PATCH] af_key: suppress a warning for 64k pages., David Miller, (Wed Oct 31, 12:08 am)
Re: [PATCH] af_key: suppress a warning for 64k pages., Stephen Rothwell, (Wed Oct 31, 12:34 am)
Re: [PATCH] af_key: suppress a warning for 64k pages., David Miller, (Wed Oct 31, 12:42 am)
[PATCH] af_key: suppress a warning for 64k pages., Stephen Rothwell, (Wed Oct 31, 1:24 am)
Re: [PATCH] af_key: suppress a warning for 64k pages., David Miller, (Wed Oct 31, 2:58 am)