Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: Avoid signedness error for GCC 5.4

[David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 6 May 2025 17:22:51 +0100
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 12:02:38AM +0800, WangYuli wrote:
> > To the compiler, (MAX_NR_TIERS - 1) (i.e., (4U - 1)) is unsigned,
> > whereas tier is a signed integer.
> > 
> > GCC 5.4 does not permit the minimum operation on such
> > type-inconsistent operands.  
> 
> 1. This has nothing to do with the compiler version; the type-checking
> is built into min().
> 2. We have min_t for a reason

Mostly historical - to match the original inline function min().
min_t() is definitely overused, it should be the 'last resort'
for a type mismatch, not the first.

> 3. Why is a signed min the right answer instead of an unsigned min?
> 

I don't seem to have the patch itself, but I' guessing it is for:

for (i = tier % MAX_NR_TIERS; i <= min(tier, MAX_NR_TIERS - 1); i++) {

which seems to have been added for 6.14-rc1 - so why is it only an issue now.

Looks closer, I bet the function is usually inlined.

	David