Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 11 May 2015 07:40:23 -0700 | From | Josh Triplett <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] rcu: change function declaration to bool |
| |
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:51:55AM +0200, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > rcu_cpu_has_callbacks() is declared int but is actually returning bool and > all call-sites currently use it as bool so the declaration should be bool > as well. > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>
The patch seems reasonable to me. However...
> --- > > ./kernel/rcu/tree.c:3538 WARNING: return of wrong type > int != bool, > > as the description of rcu_cpu_has_callbacks() states: > " * Return true if the specified CPU has any callback...." > this probably should be a bool > All (3) call sites are conditions and are treating it as boolean. > > Patch was compile tested with x86_64_defconfig (implies CONFIG_TREE_RCU=y)
...some of this information should be in the commit message, as well as a description of what tool produced this warning.
With that changed, Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
> Patch is against 4.1-rc3 (localversion-next is -next-20150511) > > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > index bcc5943..599550c 100644 > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > @@ -3516,7 +3516,7 @@ static int rcu_pending(void) > * non-NULL, store an indication of whether all callbacks are lazy. > * (If there are no callbacks, all of them are deemed to be lazy.) > */ > -static int __maybe_unused rcu_cpu_has_callbacks(bool *all_lazy) > +static bool __maybe_unused rcu_cpu_has_callbacks(bool *all_lazy) > { > bool al = true; > bool hc = false; > -- > 1.7.10.4 >
| |