Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] tuntap: XDP transmission

[Jason Wang]

On 2018å01æ01æ 11:55, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-01-01 at 11:48 +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> > Hi Jason,
> >
> > I love your patch! Perhaps something to improve:
> >
> > [auto build test WARNING on net-next/master]
> >
> > url:    https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Jason-Wang/XDP-transmission-for-tuntap/20180101-105946
> > config: i386-randconfig-x072-201800 (attached as .config)
> > compiler: gcc-7 (Debian 7.2.0-12) 7.2.1 20171025
> > reproduce:
> >          # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> >          make ARCH=i386
> >
> > All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> >
> >     drivers//net/tun.c: In function 'tun_xdp_to_ptr':
> > > > drivers//net/tun.c:251:9: warning: cast to pointer from integer of different size [-Wint-to-pointer-cast]
> >       return (void *)((unsigned long)ptr | TUN_XDP_FLAG);
> >              ^
> >     drivers//net/tun.c: In function 'tun_ptr_to_xdp':
> >     drivers//net/tun.c:257:9: warning: cast to pointer from integer of different size [-Wint-to-pointer-cast]
> >       return (void *)((unsigned long)ptr & ~TUN_XDP_FLAG);
> >              ^
> >
> > vim +251 drivers//net/tun.c
> >
> >     248	
> >     249	void *tun_xdp_to_ptr(void *ptr)
> >     250	{
> >   > 251		return (void *)((unsigned long)ptr | TUN_XDP_FLAG);
> Does TUN_XDP_FLAG really need to be 0x1ULL?
> Wouldn't 0x1UL suffice?

0x1UL should be fine.

Thanks