[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130531160259.553761ddeb6095d22e8cea0d@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 16:02:59 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: liguang <lig.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] sys/reboot: boolize C_A_D
On Thu, 30 May 2013 15:58:05 +0800 liguang <lig.fnst@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> --- a/include/linux/reboot.h
> +++ b/include/linux/reboot.h
> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ extern void kernel_restart(char *cmd);
> extern void kernel_halt(void);
> extern void kernel_power_off(void);
>
> -extern int C_A_D; /* for sysctl */
> +extern bool C_A_D; /* for sysctl */
> void ctrl_alt_del(void);
This means that the pointer in kernel/sysctl.c:kern_table.data now
points at a bool but is declared to have size sizeof(int).
That happens to work with current gcc verions, but there's no rule
which states that sizeof(bool) must equal sizeof(int).
And I'm not sure that changing kern_table to use sizeof(bool) is really
worth all the bother.
--
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