Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755458AbdCXGzE (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Mar 2017 02:55:04 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:55470 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753249AbdCXGy6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Mar 2017 02:54:58 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 07:54:41 +0100 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Grant Grundler Cc: Clemens Ladisch , Matthias Kaehlcke , Arnd Bergmann , LKML , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] hpet: Make cmd parameter of hpet_ioctl_common() unsigned Message-ID: <20170324065441.GA19925@kroah.com> References: <20170313185725.144873-1-mka@chromium.org> <1b8d62d2-9c3a-eb18-9b4b-21d2a80cebfa@ladisch.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1335 Lines: 35 On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 02:47:39PM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote: > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 12:56 AM, Clemens Ladisch wrote: > > Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > >> The value passed by the two callers of the function is unsigned anyway. > > > > Indeed; and those are just simple wrappers. > > > >> Making the parameter unsigned fixes the following warning when building > >> with clang: > >> > >> drivers/char/hpet.c:588:7: error: overflow converting case value to switch condition type (2149083139 to 18446744071563667459) [-Werror,-Wswitch] > >> case HPET_INFO: > >> ^ > >> include/uapi/linux/hpet.h:18:19: note: expanded from macro 'HPET_INFO' > >> ^ > >> include/uapi/asm-generic/ioctl.h:77:28: note: expanded from macro '_IOR' > >> ^ > >> include/uapi/asm-generic/ioctl.h:66:2: note: expanded from macro '_IOC' > >> (((dir) << _IOC_DIRSHIFT) | \ > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke > > > > Acked-by: Clemens Ladisch > > Any other feedback on this patch? > Or has this already been added to someone's "for-linus" branch? > > just looking for update on patch status. This is already in my -next branch, to go into 4.12-rc1. Should it get into 4.11-final instead? thanks, greg k-h