Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:39:20 -0400 | From | "Cédric Augonnet" <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |