lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: voyager_{thread,cat}.c compile warnings
    2007/7/22, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>:
    > On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 18:49 -0400, Cédric Augonnet wrote:
    > > iff -urN a/arch/i386/mach-voyager/voyager_cat.c
    > > b/arch/i386/mach-voyager/voyager_cat.c
    > > --- /home/gonnet/tmp/linux-2.6.22/arch/i386/mach-voyager/voyager_cat.c 2007-07-20 11:50:17.000000000 -0400
    > > +++ linux-2.6.22/arch/i386/mach-voyager/voyager_cat.c 2007-07-22
    > > 11:24:34.000000000 -0400
    > > @@ -682,7 +682,7 @@
    > > outb(VOYAGER_CAT_END, CAT_CMD);
    > > continue;
    > > }
    > > - if(eprom_size > sizeof(eprom_buf)) {
    > > + if((unsigned)eprom_size > sizeof(eprom_buf)) {
    >
    > Actually, no. If gcc can deduce that the comparison is always false
    > then I want it not to build the body of the if. The only thing I don't
    > know how to do is to shut up the warning in this case. What you've done
    > is make gcc pretend it doesn't know the if is always false.
    >
    > > printk("**WARNING**: Voyager insufficient size
    > > to read EPROM data, module 0x%x. Need %d\n", i, eprom_size);
    > > outb(VOYAGER_CAT_END, CAT_CMD);
    > > continue;
    > > @@ -752,7 +752,7 @@
    > > outb(VOYAGER_CAT_END, CAT_CMD);
    > > continue;
    > > }
    > > - if(eprom_size > sizeof(eprom_buf)) {
    > > + if((unsigned)eprom_size > sizeof(eprom_buf)) {
    > > printk("**WARNING**: Voyager insufficient size
    > > to read EPROM data, module 0x%x. Need %d\n", i, eprom_size);
    > > outb(VOYAGER_CAT_END, CAT_CMD);
    > > continue;
    > > diff -urN a/arch/i386/mach-voyager/voyager_thread.c
    > > b/arch/i386/mach-voyager/voyager_thread.c
    > > --- /home/gonnet/tmp/linux-2.6.22/arch/i386/mach-voyager/voyager_thread.c 2007-07-20 11:50:17.000000000 -0400
    > > +++
    > > linux-2.6.22/arch/i386/mach-voyager/voyager_thread.c 2007-07-22
    > > 11:27:13.000000000 -0400
    > > @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@
    > > }
    > > }
    > >
    > > -static int
    > > +static void
    > > thread(void *unused)
    > > {
    > > printk(KERN_NOTICE "Voyager starting monitor thread\n");
    >
    > You didn't actually compile this, did you? Apparently the signature of
    > the kthread_run function changed from returning void to returning int.
    > Unfortunately the person who fixed this up forgot to add a return 0 at
    > the end of the voyager thread() function .. which is the correct fix.

    Arg i was caught by that one.

    > James
    >

    Ouch indeed this quick'n'dirty patch was, let's call it a full mistake
    :) sorry for that, it could indeed not be tested as i don't have the
    hardware.

    Still, is it safe to compare two variable with different types anyway ?

    In http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-pcmcia/2004-March/000586.html
    they also have the same issue, they just do
    s/ foo > 0xffff / foo & ~0xffff /
    should not it solve the problem as well ?

    Sorry again for the first patch, next time i'll just shut up.

    Regards,
    Cédric
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-07-23 02:41    [W:0.025 / U:30.644 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site