[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y8lqRjeM9I/rRrvv@google.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 16:05:26 +0000
From: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Vincent Knecht <vincent.knecht@...loo.org>,
linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [resent, PATCH v2 1/1] leds: is31fl319x: Wrap mutex_destroy()
for devm_add_action_or_rest()
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Clang complains that devm_add_action() takes a parameter with a wrong type:
>
> warning: cast from 'void (*)(struct mutex *)' to 'void (*)(void *)' converts to incompatible function type [-Wcast-function-type-strict]
> err = devm_add_action(dev, (void (*)(void *))mutex_destroy, &is31->lock);
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 1 warning generated.
>
> It appears that the commit e1af5c815586 ("leds: is31fl319x: Fix devm vs.
> non-devm ordering") missed two things:
> - while mention devm_add_action_or_reset() the actual change got
> devm_add_action() call by unknown reason
> - strictly speaking the parameter is not compatible by type
>
> Fix both issues by switching to devm_add_action_or_reset() and adding a
> wrapper for mutex_destroy() call.
>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> Fixes: e1af5c815586 ("leds: is31fl319x: Fix devm vs. non-devm ordering")
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> Tested-by: Vincent Knecht <vincent.knecht@...loo.org>
> ---
>
> v2 resent: resent as v2
> v2: added tag (Vincent), Cc'ed to Lee
>
> drivers/leds/leds-is31fl319x.c | 7 ++++++-
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Not sure what the differences were, but looks like I already applied v1.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists