lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jun]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: mmotm 2013-06-27-16-36 uploaded (wait event common)
On 06/27/13 22:51, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 22:30:41 -0700 Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
>
>> On 06/27/13 16:37, akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote:
>>> The mm-of-the-moment snapshot 2013-06-27-16-36 has been uploaded to
>>>
>>> http://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/
>>>
>>> mmotm-readme.txt says
>>>
>>> README for mm-of-the-moment:
>>>
>>> http://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/
>>>
>>
>> My builds are littered with hundreds of warnings like this one:
>>
>> drivers/tty/tty_ioctl.c:220:6: warning: the omitted middle operand in ?: will always be 'true', suggest explicit middle operand [-Wparentheses]
>>
>> I guess due to this line from wait_event_common():
>>
>> + __ret = __wait_no_timeout(tout) ?: (tout) ?: 1;
>>
>
> Ah, sorry, I missed that. Had I noticed it, I would have spat it back
> on taste grounds alone, it being unfit for human consumption.
>
> Something like this?
>
> --- a/include/linux/wait.h~wait-introduce-wait_event_commonwq-condition-state-timeout-fix
> +++ a/include/linux/wait.h
> @@ -196,7 +196,11 @@ wait_queue_head_t *bit_waitqueue(void *,
> for (;;) { \
> prepare_to_wait(&wq, &__wait, state); \
> if (condition) { \
> - __ret = __wait_no_timeout(tout) ?: __tout ?: 1; \
> + __ret = __wait_no_timeout(tout); \
> + if (!__ret) \
> + __ret = __tout; \
> + if (!__ret) \
> + __ret = 1; \
> break; \
> } \
> \
>
>

That does reduce the number of warnings, but the wait_event_common() macro
needs similar treatment. I.e., I am still getting those warnings, just not
quite as many. (down from 2 per source code line to 1 per source code line
which contains some kind of wait...)

--
~Randy


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-06-28 09:01    [W:0.053 / U:0.360 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site