On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 02:16, Paul Jackson wrote: > Jason asked: > > Well, anything wrong in cleaning them [unsigned compare warnings] up? In this case the warning is not unsigned compare but "comparison of .* is always [true|false]". This sort of code generally makes me think someone did something wrong, not just that the person added additional unnecessary checking. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] mm/slab.c remove impossible <0 check - size_t is not signed - patch is against 2.6.1-rc1-mm2Bill Davidsen
- [PATCH] mm/slab.c remove impossible <0 check - size_t is not signed- patch is against 2.6.1-rc1-mm2Jesper Juhl
- Re: [PATCH] mm/slab.c remove impossible <0 check - size_t is notsigned - patch is against 2.6.1-rc1-mm2Joe Perches
- Re: [PATCH] mm/slab.c remove impossible <0 check - size_t is notsigned - patch is against 2.6.1-rc1-mm2Jesper Juhl
- Re: [PATCH] mm/slab.c remove impossible <0 check - size_t is notsigned - patch is against 2.6.1-rc1-mm2Paul Jackson
- Prev by Date: Re: [patch] RCU for low latency [1/2]
- Next by Date: Re: scheduling problems in X with 2.6.0
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] mm/slab.c remove impossible <0 check - size_t is notsigned - patch is against 2.6.1-rc1-mm2
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] mm/slab.c remove impossible <0 check - size_t is not signed - patch is against 2.6.1-rc1-mm2
- Indexes:[Main][Thread]