[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200901070920.18032.inaky@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 09:20:17 -0800
From: Inaky Perez-Gonzalez <inaky@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
Cc: Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, wimax@...uxwimax.org,
greg@...ah.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] wimax: fix '#ifdef CONFIG_BUG' layout to avoid warning
On Wednesday 07 January 2009, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez wrote:
> > Reported by Randy Dunlap:
> > > Also, this warning needs to be fixed:
> > >
> > > linux-next-20090106/net/wimax/id-table.c:133: warning: ISO C90
> > > forbids mixed declarations and code
> >
> > Move the return on #defined(CONFIG_BUG) below the variable
> > declarations so it doesn't violate ISO C90.
> >
> > On wimax_id_table_release() we want to do a debug check if CONFIG_BUG
> > is enabled. However, we also want the debug code to be always compiled
> > to ensure there is no bitrot.
>
> I hope this kind of solution won't add some warnings? Besides, this seems
> rather strange reasoning as CONFIG_BUG is mostly enabled anyway?
Well, it is legal code -- short of 'if (1) return'. It doesn't warn (and
it should not).
> > -#ifndef CONFIG_BUG
> > - return;
> > -#endif
> > struct wimax_dev *wimax_dev;
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_BUG
>
> Did you perhaps mean ifndef here??? :-)
Sigh ... you are right ... good thing I triple checked.
Sending updated patch series.
Thanks,
--
Inaky
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists