From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263963AbUAHKQ2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2004 05:16:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264095AbUAHKQ2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2004 05:16:28 -0500 Received: from mtvcafw.sgi.com ([192.48.171.6]:926 "EHLO zok.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263963AbUAHKQ1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2004 05:16:27 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 02:16:58 -0800 From: Paul Jackson To: Jesper Juhl Cc: joe@perches.com, juhl-lkml@dif.dk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, markhe@nextd.demon.co.uk, andrea@e-mind.com, manfred@colorfullife.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/slab.c remove impossible <0 check - size_t is not signed - patch is against 2.6.1-rc1-mm2 Message-Id: <20040108021658.0a8aaccc.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1073531294.2304.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Organization: SGI X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jason asked: > Well, anything wrong in cleaning them [unsigned compare warnings] up? It's more important that we write code that will fit in our limited human brains than that we write code that will avoid spurious warnings from gcc ('spurious' meaning warnings for code that gcc will correctly compile anyway). Or, see a couple months ago, in a thread with the Subject of: [PATCH] irda: fix type of struct irda_ias_set.attribute.irda_attrib_string.len in which Linus wrote: > That's why I hate the "sign compare" warning of gcc so much - it warns > about things that you CANNOT sanely write in any other way. That makes > that particular warning _evil_, since it encourages people to write crap > code. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.650.933.1373