Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:20:01 -0300 | From | "Kevin Winchester" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Fix an incompatible pointer type warning on x86_64 compilations |
| |
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 1:18 PM, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote: > Fix an incompatible pointer type warning on x86_64 compilations. > early_memtest() is passing a u64* to find_e820_area_size() which is expecting > an unsigned long. Change t_start and t_size to unsigned long as those are > also 64-bit types on x88_64. > > Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> > --- > > arch/x86/mm/init_64.c | 4 ++-- > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c b/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c > index 156e6d7..998a06e 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c > @@ -506,7 +506,7 @@ early_param("memtest", parse_memtest); > > static void __init early_memtest(unsigned long start, unsigned long end) > { > - u64 t_start, t_size; > + unsigned long t_start, t_size; > unsigned pattern; > > if (!memtest_pattern) > @@ -525,7 +525,7 @@ static void __init early_memtest(unsigned long start, unsigned long end) > if (t_start + t_size > end) > t_size = end - t_start; > > - printk(KERN_CONT "\n %016llx - %016llx pattern %d", > + printk(KERN_CONT "\n %016lx - %016lx pattern %d", > t_start, t_start + t_size, pattern); > > memtest(t_start, t_size, pattern); >
This is essentially a revert of a patch I sent to Ingo for a warning I saw in linux-next. Has find_e820_area_size() changed in linux-next to take u64 instead of unsigned long? In any case, the patch should not have been submitted to Linus, since it was only in next that I saw the warning. Sorry for the confusion.
-- Kevin Winchester
| |