On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 02:34:51PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 10:44:43 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > > > If I recall correctly, this subterfuge suppresses compiler complaints
> > > > about initializing an unsigned long with a negative number. :-/
> > >
> > > Did you try:
> > >
> > > .srcu_gp_seq_needed = -1UL,
> > >
> > > ?
> >
> > Works for my compiler, not sure what set of complaints pushed me in that
> > direction.
>
> I've used -1UL for unsigned long initializations for pretty much my
> entire programming career. I've never had any issues with it.
Fair enough. I have to fix a "void void" that my compilers were happy
with, so might as well do this one also. "I am telling you, don't even
-think- about expecting a return value from -this- function!!!" ;-)
Thanx, Paul
