Message ID | 20171122210739.29916-6-willy@infradead.org (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:28:48PM +0100, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > > - root->gfp_mask &= (1 << ROOT_TAG_SHIFT) - 1; > > + root->gfp_mask &= (__force gfp_t)((1 << ROOT_TAG_SHIFT) - 1); > > IMO, it would be better to define something for that in radix-tree.h, > like it has been done for ROOT_IS_IDR. If we were keeping the radix tree around, I'd agree, but the point of the rest of this patch set is replacing it ;-) I should probably have just dropped this patch, to be honest.
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 02:24:02PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:28:48PM +0100, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > > > - root->gfp_mask &= (1 << ROOT_TAG_SHIFT) - 1; > > > + root->gfp_mask &= (__force gfp_t)((1 << ROOT_TAG_SHIFT) - 1); > > > > IMO, it would be better to define something for that in radix-tree.h, > > like it has been done for ROOT_IS_IDR. > > If we were keeping the radix tree around, I'd agree, but the point of > the rest of this patch set is replacing it ;-) I should probably have > just dropped this patch, to be honest. Ah OK, sure. I confess I didn't saw the whole series, just this patch. -- Luc
diff --git a/lib/radix-tree.c b/lib/radix-tree.c index c8d55565fafa..f00303e0b216 100644 --- a/lib/radix-tree.c +++ b/lib/radix-tree.c @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ static inline void root_tag_clear(struct radix_tree_root *root, unsigned tag) static inline void root_tag_clear_all(struct radix_tree_root *root) { - root->gfp_mask &= (1 << ROOT_TAG_SHIFT) - 1; + root->gfp_mask &= (__force gfp_t)((1 << ROOT_TAG_SHIFT) - 1); } static inline int root_tag_get(const struct radix_tree_root *root, unsigned tag)