Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Nov 2020 10:49:54 -0700 | From | Nathan Chancellor <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] reboot: Fix variable assignments in type_store |
| |
Hi Matteo,
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 12:26:45PM +0100, Matteo Croce wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 4:50 AM Nathan Chancellor > <natechancellor@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Clang warns: > > > > kernel/reboot.c:707:17: warning: implicit conversion from enumeration > > type 'enum reboot_type' to different enumeration type 'enum reboot_mode' > > [-Wenum-conversion] > > reboot_mode = BOOT_TRIPLE; > > ~ ^~~~~~~~~~~ > > kernel/reboot.c:709:17: warning: implicit conversion from enumeration > > type 'enum reboot_type' to different enumeration type 'enum reboot_mode' > > [-Wenum-conversion] > > reboot_mode = BOOT_KBD; > > ~ ^~~~~~~~ > > kernel/reboot.c:711:17: warning: implicit conversion from enumeration > > type 'enum reboot_type' to different enumeration type 'enum reboot_mode' > > [-Wenum-conversion] > > reboot_mode = BOOT_BIOS; > > ~ ^~~~~~~~~ > > kernel/reboot.c:713:17: warning: implicit conversion from enumeration > > type 'enum reboot_type' to different enumeration type 'enum reboot_mode' > > [-Wenum-conversion] > > reboot_mode = BOOT_ACPI; > > ~ ^~~~~~~~~ > > kernel/reboot.c:715:17: warning: implicit conversion from enumeration > > type 'enum reboot_type' to different enumeration type 'enum reboot_mode' > > [-Wenum-conversion] > > reboot_mode = BOOT_EFI; > > ~ ^~~~~~~~ > > kernel/reboot.c:717:17: warning: implicit conversion from enumeration > > type 'enum reboot_type' to different enumeration type 'enum reboot_mode' > > [-Wenum-conversion] > > reboot_mode = BOOT_CF9_FORCE; > > ~ ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > kernel/reboot.c:719:17: warning: implicit conversion from enumeration > > type 'enum reboot_type' to different enumeration type 'enum reboot_mode' > > [-Wenum-conversion] > > reboot_mode = BOOT_CF9_SAFE; > > ~ ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 7 warnings generated. > > > > It seems that these assignment should be to reboot_type, not > > reboot_mode. Fix it so there are no more warnings and the code works > > properly. > > > > Fixes: eab8da48579d ("reboot: allow to specify reboot mode via sysfs") > > Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/1197 > > Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com> > > --- > > kernel/reboot.c | 14 +++++++------- > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/reboot.c b/kernel/reboot.c > > index deba133a071b..8599d0d44aec 100644 > > --- a/kernel/reboot.c > > +++ b/kernel/reboot.c > > @@ -704,19 +704,19 @@ static ssize_t type_store(struct kobject *kobj, struct kobj_attribute *attr, > > return -EPERM; > > > > if (!strncmp(buf, BOOT_TRIPLE_STR, strlen(BOOT_TRIPLE_STR))) > > - reboot_mode = BOOT_TRIPLE; > > + reboot_type = BOOT_TRIPLE; > > else if (!strncmp(buf, BOOT_KBD_STR, strlen(BOOT_KBD_STR))) > > - reboot_mode = BOOT_KBD; > > + reboot_type = BOOT_KBD; > > else if (!strncmp(buf, BOOT_BIOS_STR, strlen(BOOT_BIOS_STR))) > > - reboot_mode = BOOT_BIOS; > > + reboot_type = BOOT_BIOS; > > else if (!strncmp(buf, BOOT_ACPI_STR, strlen(BOOT_ACPI_STR))) > > - reboot_mode = BOOT_ACPI; > > + reboot_type = BOOT_ACPI; > > else if (!strncmp(buf, BOOT_EFI_STR, strlen(BOOT_EFI_STR))) > > - reboot_mode = BOOT_EFI; > > + reboot_type = BOOT_EFI; > > else if (!strncmp(buf, BOOT_CF9_FORCE_STR, strlen(BOOT_CF9_FORCE_STR))) > > - reboot_mode = BOOT_CF9_FORCE; > > + reboot_type = BOOT_CF9_FORCE; > > else if (!strncmp(buf, BOOT_CF9_SAFE_STR, strlen(BOOT_CF9_SAFE_STR))) > > - reboot_mode = BOOT_CF9_SAFE; > > + reboot_type = BOOT_CF9_SAFE; > > else > > return -EINVAL; > > > > > > base-commit: 3e14f70c05cda4794901ed8f976de3a88deebcc0 > > -- > > 2.29.2 > > > > Hmm, this was introduced in v3 I think. > > I wonder why my compiler doesn't warn about it, the two variables are > defined as different enum type. > I get the same warnings with GCC and -Wenum-conversion.
What version of GCC do you have? -Wenum-conversion is a fairly new warning in GCC I think. Although if you get it now, maybe it was some configuration error?
Regardless, thank you for taking a look at the patch!
Cheers, Nathan
| |