[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56EC54CC.90101@hurleysoftware.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 12:19:40 -0700
From: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
To: Maarten Brock <m.brock@...mierlo.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Korsgaard <jacmet@...site.dk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] serial-uartlite: fix build warning
On 03/18/2016 10:48 AM, Maarten Brock wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Geert Uytterhoeven [mailto:geert@...ux-m68k.org]
> To: Sudip Mukherjee [mailto:sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com]
> Cc: Peter Korsgaard [mailto:jacmet@...site.dk], Greg Kroah-Hartman [mailto:gregkh@...uxfoundation.org], Jiri Slaby [mailto:jslaby@...e.com], linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org [mailto:linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org], linux-serial@...r.kernel.org [mailto:linux-serial@...r.kernel.org]
> Sent: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 13:48:06 +0100
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] serial-uartlite: fix build warning
>
>
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Sudip Mukherjee
>> <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com> wrote:
>>> We were getting build warnings about:
>>> drivers/tty/serial/uartlite.c: In function ‘ulite_request_port’:
>>> drivers/tty/serial/uartlite.c:348:21: warning: assignment discards
>>> 'const' qualifier from pointer target type
>>> port->private_data = &uartlite_be;
>>> ^
>>> drivers/tty/serial/uartlite.c:354:22: warning: assignment discards
>>> 'const' qualifier from pointer target type
>>> port->private_data = &uartlite_le;
>>> ^
>>>
>>> Fixes: 2905697a82ea ("serial-uartlite: Constify uartlite_be/uartlite_le")
>>> Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukherjee@...ethink.co.uk>
>>
>> Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
>>
>> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>>
>> Geert
>
> Reverting is not the same as fixing.
I agree; better to revert commit 2905697a82ea and let Maarten re-submit
a patch that doesn't generate build warnings.
> Rant:
> It is a stupid warning IMHO, but being a compiler writer myself (SDCC) I
> understand how it can arise. If you assign some const pointer to a void
> pointer without an explicit cast gcc does not complain about the complete
> loss of type, but it does warn about losing constness. In general I'd say:
> make up your mind; either warn about both or don't warn about either.
memcpy
Regards,
Peter Hurley
Powered by blists - more mailing lists