[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1185147550.3431.19.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:39:10 -0500
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Cédric Augonnet <cedric.augonnet@...il.com>
Cc: Gabriel C <nix.or.die@...glemail.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
J.E.J.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com
Subject: Re: voyager_{thread,cat}.c compile warnings
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.
James
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists