gcc seems to get uber-anal recently about these things.
Clarification from Dan Carpenter:
"Sorry, I should have said that it's not a gcc warning, it's a smatch
thing. But also it's not uber-anal. It's the exact level of anality
which is required to make the == -1 test work. You can compare
unsigned int and longs to -1 and it works but for smaller types it
doesn't."
Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
u32 tiling:2;
u32 dirty:1;
u32 purgeable:1;
- u32 ring:4;
+ s32 ring:4;
u32 cache_level:2;
} *active_bo, *pinned_bo;
u32 active_bo_count, pinned_bo_count;