2008-01-09 15:42:51

by Pierre Peiffer

Subject: [-mm] new warning in ipc/msg.c

Hi,

This very small patch:
ipc-convert-handmade-min-to-min.patch
introduces a new warning when compiling the -mm kernel:

.../linux-2.6.24-rc6-mm1/ipc/msg.c: In function `do_msgrcv':
.../linux-2.6.24-rc6-mm1/ipc/msg.c:939: warning: comparison of distinct pointer
types lacks a cast

I don't know if doing in include/linux/msg.h

struct msg_msg {
struct list_head m_list;
long m_type;
- int m_ts; /* message text size */
+ size_t m_ts; /* message text size */
struct msg_msgseg* next;
void *security;
/* the actual message follows immediately */
};

is acceptable ?

Otherwise, either a cast can be added or this patch can be dropped...

Thanks,

--
Pierre Peiffer

2008-01-09 23:14:38

by Andrew Morton

Subject: Re: [-mm] new warning in ipc/msg.c

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:42:34 +0100
Pierre Peiffer <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This very small patch:
> ipc-convert-handmade-min-to-min.patch
> introduces a new warning when compiling the -mm kernel:
>
> .../linux-2.6.24-rc6-mm1/ipc/msg.c: In function `do_msgrcv':
> .../linux-2.6.24-rc6-mm1/ipc/msg.c:939: warning: comparison of distinct pointer
> types lacks a cast
>
> I don't know if doing in include/linux/msg.h
>
> struct msg_msg {
> struct list_head m_list;
> long m_type;
> - int m_ts; /* message text size */
> + size_t m_ts; /* message text size */
> struct msg_msgseg* next;
> void *security;
> /* the actual message follows immediately */
> };
>
> is acceptable ?
>
> Otherwise, either a cast can be added or this patch can be dropped...
>

Thanks. I think I'll drop the original patch. The mix of ints, size_t's,
etc in that code is pretty random and would be best addressed by somene
sitting down and working out from scratch what types we _should_ be using
in there and then making all the code use the right types in an organised
fashion.

Doing this in a piecemeal through-a-pinhole fashion won't work very well
and is a bit risky.

2008-01-10 08:30:57

by Pierre Peiffer

Subject: Re: [-mm] new warning in ipc/msg.c

Andrew Morton wrote:

> Doing this in a piecemeal through-a-pinhole fashion won't work very well
> and is a bit risky.

Yes, agree, that's also my feeling.

--
Pierre Peiffer