[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1112180103130.21784@swampdragon.chaosbits.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 01:05:31 +0100 (CET)
From: Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
To: x86@...nel.org
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: [PATCH] x86, mc146818rtc.h: use do{}while(0) for empty
lock_cmos()/unlock_cmos()
gcc noticed (when using -Wempty-body) that our use of lock_cmos() and
unlock_cmos() in arch/x86/include/asm/mach_traps.h is potentially
problematic :
arch/x86/include/asm/mach_traps.h:32:15: warning: suggest braces around empty body in an ‘else’ statement [-Wempty-body]
arch/x86/include/asm/mach_traps.h:40:16: warning: suggest braces around empty body in an ‘else’ statement [-Wempty-body]
Let's just use the standard 'do {} while (0)' solution. That shuts up
gcc and also prevents future problems if the macros should end up
being used in a similar situation elsewhere.
Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
---
arch/x86/include/asm/mc146818rtc.h | 4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mc146818rtc.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/mc146818rtc.h
index 01fdf56..3bb1b14 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/mc146818rtc.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mc146818rtc.h
@@ -81,8 +81,8 @@ static inline unsigned char current_lock_cmos_reg(void)
#else
#define lock_cmos_prefix(reg) do {} while (0)
#define lock_cmos_suffix(reg) do {} while (0)
-#define lock_cmos(reg)
-#define unlock_cmos()
+#define lock_cmos(reg) do {} while (0)
+#define unlock_cmos() do {} while (0)
#define do_i_have_lock_cmos() 0
#define current_lock_cmos_reg() 0
#endif
--
1.7.8
--
Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net> http://www.chaosbits.net/
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists