[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081211044901.GL28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 04:49:01 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Nguyen Anh Quynh <aquynh@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kuniyasu Suzaki <k.suzaki@...t.go.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix calls to request_module()
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 08:14:55PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 04:01:18 +0000 Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 12:35:21PM +0900, Nguyen Anh Quynh wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > The request_module() function should always have the 1st param as a
> > > format argument. So for example, request_module("i2c-powermac") should
> > > be called as request_module("%s", "i2c-powermac"). Otherwise, new gcc
> > > like gcc 4.3.2 on Ubuntu 8.10 would spit out a lot of warnings. This
> > > patch fixes them all in linus-git tree.
> >
> > ... and it doesn't address the underlying problems at all. A string literal
> > without a single % in it is a perfectly sane and valid format. _Why_ are
> > we getting these warning?
>
> extern int request_module(const char * name, ...) __attribute__ ((format (printf, 1, 2)));
>
> ?
... and request_module("i2c-powermac") should be perfectly valid, shouldn't it?
I mean, I do not believe that any gcc version would start spewing warnings
of
printf("-- \n");
and its ilk...
--
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