Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758641AbYJWT0q (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:26:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752211AbYJWT0h (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:26:37 -0400 Received: from sca-es-mail-2.Sun.COM ([192.18.43.133]:35180 "EHLO sca-es-mail-2.sun.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751622AbYJWT0g (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:26:36 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:26:18 -0600 From: Andreas Dilger Subject: Re: [PATCH,RFC] ext3: Add support for non-native signed/unsigned htree hash algorithms In-reply-to: <20081023025646.GD10369@mit.edu> To: Theodore Tso , Andrew Morton , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-id: <20081023192618.GS3184@webber.adilger.int> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline X-GPG-Key: 1024D/0D35BED6 X-GPG-Fingerprint: 7A37 5D79 BF1B CECA D44F 8A29 A488 39F5 0D35 BED6 References: <1224560624-9691-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <1224560624-9691-2-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <20081022172221.c1a8c5b5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20081023025646.GD10369@mit.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1437 Lines: 39 On Oct 22, 2008 22:56 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 05:22:21PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > arm says > > > > fs/ext3/super.c: In function `ext3_fill_super': > > fs/ext3/super.c:1750: warning: comparison is always false due to limited range of data type > > > > Also, is there any way in which this new code can be, umm, cleaned up? > > Hmm..... is it considered safe to depend on the userspace limits.h > header file? I guess if we trust that header file to be correct we > could check the value of CHAR_MIN and/or CHAR_MAX as defined by > limits.h. That would likely fail on cross-compiled environments, right? > Alternatively we could do an #ifdef __CHAR_UNSIGNED__, which is > defined by gcc. The manual for gcc tells us not to depend on it, but > to depend on limits.h instead. This warning likely is aimed at userspace for portable applications. > Any thoughts, or comments? Does anyone know if the Intel compiler > will DTRT with either of these approaches? If it doesn't, then it probably has some equivalent that can be #ifdef'd in its place. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/