Re: linux-next: changed messages in qemu boot

[Naveen N. Rao]

Michael Ellerman wrote:
> "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> > The below diff fixes it for me:
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> > index 46c002a8388804..7418da705d43ac 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> > @@ -746,7 +746,7 @@ int __init ftrace_dyn_arch_init(void)
> >  
> >         reladdr = addr - kernel_toc_addr();
> >  
> > -       if (reladdr >= SZ_2G || reladdr < -SZ_2G) {
> > +       if (reladdr >= SZ_2G || reladdr < -_UL(SZ_2G)) {
> >                 pr_err("Address of %ps out of range of kernel_toc.\n",
> >                                 (void *)addr);
> >                 return -1;
>
> I did:
>
> 	if (reladdr >= SZ_2G || reladdr < -(long)SZ_2G) {

That was my first attempt.

> Which more closely matches what the old code did, and I think is more
> obvious? ie. we don't want to negate the unsigned value, we want a
> signed value, and then the negative of that.

When you put it like that... :D
In hindsight, I agree though -- _UL() isn't necessarily better.


Thanks,
Naveen