Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 29 Jun 2021 21:55:14 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To:     Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
Cc:     Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] trace: osnoise: Fix u64 less than zero comparison
Message-ID: <20210629185513.GC1983@kadam>
References: <20210629165245.42157-1-colin.king@canonical.com>
 <c74e711e-71c9-df9c-8406-b9e92ef12da0@redhat.com>
 <e36f61af-4fbe-42cf-f26d-229f940e8fc9@canonical.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e36f61af-4fbe-42cf-f26d-229f940e8fc9@canonical.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 06:21:32PM +0100, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 29/06/2021 18:19, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> > On 6/29/21 6:52 PM, Colin King wrote:
> >> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> >>
> >> The less than zero comparison of the u64 variable 'noise' is always
> >> false because the variable is unsigned. Since the time_sub macro
> >> can potentially return an -ve vale, make the variable a s64 to
> >> fix the issue.
> > 
> > Ops! concurrent bug fixing.
> 
> Well, shows static analysis is doing it's thing and I'm not being
> vigilant enough by spotting that Dan found it earlier :-)

Nah.  I don't normally CC kernel-janitors on bug reports.  I sometimes
do on netdev stuff because Dave told me ten years ago that static
analysis noise on the list was an annoying thing.  And actually on that
one I didn't CC anyone actually, Oops.

regards,
dan carpenter