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 <hof...@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 <j...@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
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
