Re: [PATCH RFC] Make call_srcu() available during very early boot

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 02:34:51PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 10:44:43 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > > If I recall correctly, this subterfuge suppresses compiler complaints
> > > > about initializing an unsigned long with a negative number.  :-/  
> > > 
> > > Did you try:
> > > 
> > > 	.srcu_gp_seq_needed = -1UL,
> > > 
> > > ?  
> > 
> > Works for my compiler, not sure what set of complaints pushed me in that
> > direction.
> 
> I've used -1UL for unsigned long initializations for pretty much my
> entire programming career. I've never had any issues with it.

Fair enough.  I have to fix a "void void" that my compilers were happy
with, so might as well do this one also.  "I am telling you, don't even
-think- about expecting a return value from -this- function!!!"  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul