4.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Naoya Horiguchi n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com
[ Upstream commit 904506562e0856f2535d876407d087c9459d345b ]
Currently we get the following compiler warning:
slabinfo.c:854:22: warning: comparison between signed and unsigned integer expressions [-Wsign-compare] if (s->object_size < min_objsize) ^
due to the mismatch of signed/unsigned comparison. ->object_size and ->slab_size are never expected to be negative, so let's define them as unsigned int.
[n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com: convert everything - none of these can be negative] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180826234947.GA9787@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1535103134-20239-1-git-send-email-n-horiguchi@ah.jp... Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com Reviewed-by: Andrew Morton akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: Matthew Wilcox willy@infradead.org Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton akpm@linux-foundation.org Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin alexander.levin@microsoft.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org --- tools/vm/slabinfo.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/tools/vm/slabinfo.c +++ b/tools/vm/slabinfo.c @@ -29,8 +29,8 @@ struct slabinfo { int alias; int refs; int aliases, align, cache_dma, cpu_slabs, destroy_by_rcu; - int hwcache_align, object_size, objs_per_slab; - int sanity_checks, slab_size, store_user, trace; + unsigned int hwcache_align, object_size, objs_per_slab; + unsigned int sanity_checks, slab_size, store_user, trace; int order, poison, reclaim_account, red_zone; unsigned long partial, objects, slabs, objects_partial, objects_total; unsigned long alloc_fastpath, alloc_slowpath;