netdev - Re: [PATCH] amd-xgbe: fix mismatched prototype

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 16 Feb 2023 08:55:06 +0530
From:   Raju Rangoju <Raju.Rangoju@....com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Cc:     Shyam Sundar S K <Shyam-sundar.S-k@....com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] amd-xgbe: fix mismatched prototype



On 2/7/2023 12:24 PM, Shyam Sundar S K wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/7/2023 11:58 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Fri,  3 Feb 2023 13:15:36 +0100 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> The forward declaration was introduced with a prototype that does
>>> not match the function definition:
>>>
>>> drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c:2166:13: error: conflicting types for 'xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange' due to enum/integer mismatch; have 'void(struct xgbe_prv_data *, enum xgbe_mb_cmd,  enum xgbe_mb_subcmd)' [-Werror=enum-int-mismatch]
>>>   2166 | static void xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata,
>>>        |             ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c:391:13: note: previous declaration of 'xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange' with type 'void(struct xgbe_prv_data *, unsigned int,  unsigned int)'
>>>    391 | static void xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata,
>>>        |             ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Thanks for the fix. What's the compiler / extra flags you're using?
>> Doesn't pop up on our setups..
>>
> 
> Yes please. Even this does not pop on our build systems too. Would like
> to know those extra compiler flags.

Hi Arnd,

Gentle reminder!

Please share the compiler details / additional flags used to reproduce 
this warning.

Thanks,
Raju

> 
> Thanks,
> Shyam