From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 23:33:26 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] mm: nobootmem: avoid type warning about alignment value In-Reply-To: <20140113153128.6aaffb9af111ba75a7abd4db@linux-foundation.org> References: <529217C7.6030304@cogentembedded.com> <52935762.1080409@ti.com> <20131209165044.cf7de2edb8f4205d5ac02ab0@linux-foundation.org> <20131210005454.GX4360@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <52A66826.7060204@ti.com> <20140112105958.GA9791@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <52D2B7C8.4060103@ti.com> <20140113123733.GU15937@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <52D3F7E0.3030206@ti.com> <20140113153128.6aaffb9af111ba75a7abd4db@linux-foundation.org> Message-ID: <20140113233326.GG15937@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 03:31:28PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:27:44 -0500 Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > > > > It seems to me to be absolutely silly to have code introduce a warning > > > yet push the fix for the warning via a completely different tree... > > > > > I mixed it up. Sorry. Some how I thought there was some other build > > configuration thrown the same warning with memblock series and hence > > suggested the patch to go via Andrew's tree. > > Yes, I too had assumed that the warning was caused by the bootmem > patches in -mm. > > But it in fact occurs in Linus's current tree. I'll drop > mm-arm-fix-arms-__ffs-to-conform-to-avoid-warning-with-no_bootmem.patch > and I'll assume that rmk will fix this up at an appropriate time. Thanks. I'll apply my version and then I can pull Santosh's nobootmem changes (which I've had a couple of times already) without adding to the warnings. -- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: 5.8Mbps down 500kbps up. Estimation in database were 13.1 to 19Mbit for a good line, about 7.5+ for a bad. Estimate before purchase was "up to 13.2Mbit".