[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B01AD5F.7020402@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:51:59 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
CC: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Subject: Re: sparse vs. skbuff.h
Johannes Berg a écrit :
> On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 20:21 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
>> commit 14d18a81b5171d4433e41129619c75748b4f4d26
>> Author: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
>> Date: Thu Oct 29 00:10:37 2009 +0000
>>
>> net: fix kmemcheck annotations
>>
>>
>> broke sparse endian checks on everything that includes skbuff.h because
>> the first and only (because it's an error) thing sparse now reports is
>> this:
>>
>> include/linux/skbuff.h:357:41: error: invalid bitfield specifier for type restricted __be16.
>
> Simply changing from
> __be16 protocol:16;
> to
> __be16 protocol;
>
> but leaving it inside the kmemcheck annotation seems to do the right
> thing. Except of course that kmemcheck will not properly check it now.
> Maybe those annotations should simply be made to have no impact on
> struct padding instead?
>
Hmm, I have really no idea of what is the right way to fix this stuff.
Last time I did adding a non bitfield element inside the begin/end annotations,
I was flamed, because a bitfield is a bitfield, not a char/short
http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg108803.html
Now sparse is complaining... What will be the next story ?
--
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