Date:   Mon, 6 Dec 2021 16:20:04 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com>
Cc:     mingo@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        valentin.schneider@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched/fair: Fix asym_fits_capacity() task_util
 type
Message-ID: <Ya4qJHxUbKMzl04d@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20211118141411.2623521-1-vincent.donnefort@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20211118141411.2623521-1-vincent.donnefort@arm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 02:14:10PM +0000, Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> task_util is an unsigned long value, compared with a CPU capacity which is
> unsigned long as well. There's no need for an intermediate implicit int
> cast.
> 
> Fixes: b4c9c9f15649 ("sched/fair: Prefer prev cpu in asymmetric wakeup path")

Do either of these patches actually *fix* anything? Afaict they're an
absolute no-op, even in terms of code-gen due to the promotion rules.

Yes, its arguably nicer to not rely on those implicit promotions etc..
but I don't think this warrants a Fixes tag or even being split in two
patches.

Hmm?