[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080219191621.GA10986@rain>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:16:21 +0300
From: Evgeniy Dushistov <dushistov@...l.ru>
To: Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>
Cc: Roel Kluin <12o3l@...cali.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ufs: [bl]e*_add_cpu conversion
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 06:45:42PM +0100, Marcin Slusarz wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:22:19AM +0100, Roel Kluin wrote:
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:41:44 +0100 Roel Kluin <12o3l@...cali.nl> wrote:
> > >
> > >> you may also want these:
> > >> ---
> > >> [bl]e_add_cpu conversion in return
> >
> > > upsets powerpc (at least):
> > >
> > > fs/ufs/swab.h: In function `fs64_add':
> > > fs/ufs/swab.h:47: warning: passing arg 1 of `le64_add_cpu' from incompatible pointer type
> > > fs/ufs/swab.h:49: warning: passing arg 1 of `be64_add_cpu' from incompatible pointer type
> > > fs/ufs/swab.h: In function `fs64_sub':
> > > fs/ufs/swab.h:58: warning: passing arg 1 of `le64_add_cpu' from incompatible pointer type
> > > fs/ufs/swab.h:60: warning: passing arg 1 of `be64_add_cpu' from incompatible pointer type
> >
> > sorry for this. Is it correct to cast like the patch below does?
> I don't think so. Their prototypes are wrong. We can:
> a) remove fs64_add and fs64_sub as nobody use them
> b) fix them - change second parameter do __fs64 (and convert to [bl]e64_add_cpu)
>
> Evgeniy?
>
I vote for removing unused code.
--
/Evgeniy
--
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