Fix the following checkpatch warning:
mm/page_io.c:87: WARNING: Prefer 'unsigned int' to bare use of
'unsigned'.
mm/page_io.c:89: WARNING: Prefer 'unsigned int' to bare use of
'unsigned'.
mm/page_io.c:109: WARNING: Prefer 'unsigned int' to bare use of
'unsigned'.
Signed-off-by: Xingwei He <[email protected]>
---
mm/page_io.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/page_io.c b/mm/page_io.c
index 684cd3c7b59b..138f73386612 100644
--- a/mm/page_io.c
+++ b/mm/page_io.c
@@ -84,9 +84,9 @@ int generic_swapfile_activate(struct swap_info_struct
*sis,
{
struct address_space *mapping = swap_file->f_mapping;
struct inode *inode = mapping->host;
- unsigned blocks_per_page;
+ unsigned int blocks_per_page;
unsigned long page_no;
- unsigned blkbits;
+ unsigned int blkbits;
sector_t probe_block;
sector_t last_block;
sector_t lowest_block = -1;
@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ int generic_swapfile_activate(struct
swap_info_struct *sis,
last_block = i_size_read(inode) >> blkbits;
while ((probe_block + blocks_per_page) <= last_block &&
page_no < sis->max) {
- unsigned block_in_page;
+ unsigned int block_in_page;
sector_t first_block;
cond_resched();
On 14.06.23 09:23, [email protected] wrote:
> Fix the following checkpatch warning:
>
> mm/page_io.c:87: WARNING: Prefer 'unsigned int' to bare use of
> 'unsigned'.
> mm/page_io.c:89: WARNING: Prefer 'unsigned int' to bare use of
> 'unsigned'.
> mm/page_io.c:109: WARNING: Prefer 'unsigned int' to bare use of
> 'unsigned'.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xingwei He <[email protected]>
> ---
> mm/page_io.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_io.c b/mm/page_io.c
> index 684cd3c7b59b..138f73386612 100644
> --- a/mm/page_io.c
> +++ b/mm/page_io.c
> @@ -84,9 +84,9 @@ int generic_swapfile_activate(struct swap_info_struct
> *sis,
> {
> struct address_space *mapping = swap_file->f_mapping;
> struct inode *inode = mapping->host;
> - unsigned blocks_per_page;
> + unsigned int blocks_per_page;
> unsigned long page_no;
> - unsigned blkbits;
> + unsigned int blkbits;
> sector_t probe_block;
> sector_t last_block;
> sector_t lowest_block = -1;
> @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ int generic_swapfile_activate(struct
> swap_info_struct *sis,
> last_block = i_size_read(inode) >> blkbits;
> while ((probe_block + blocks_per_page) <= last_block &&
> page_no < sis->max) {
> - unsigned block_in_page;
> + unsigned int block_in_page;
> sector_t first_block;
>
> cond_resched();
>
Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 11:09:23AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 15:23:44 +0800 [email protected] wrote:
All the patches from 208suo.com should be discarded. From conversations
I've seen elsewhere, they aren't compile tested, they're whitespace
damaged and often they're just wrong.
<x> has anyone seen 208suo.com patches?
<x> so far all I've seen are either utterly wrong or won't even compile
<x> and a bunch of different email addresses/names from that domain, but all the patches coming at around the same time? it's very weird
<x> and also all the same kind of patches
<x> "remove unneeded variable" - per coccicheck, which is just not smart enough about the macro constructions
<x> and of course 20 minutes after I ask them to stop, they send another broken patch
On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 15:23:44 +0800 [email protected] wrote:
> Fix the following checkpatch warning:
>
> mm/page_io.c:87: WARNING: Prefer 'unsigned int' to bare use of
> 'unsigned'.
> mm/page_io.c:89: WARNING: Prefer 'unsigned int' to bare use of
> 'unsigned'.
> mm/page_io.c:109: WARNING: Prefer 'unsigned int' to bare use of
> 'unsigned'.
I'm counting 55 of these in mm/*.c. If we're going to do this then it
wouild be better to do all at once, plus the header files.
I don't believe that is worth the churn.