2011-06-04 02:22:50

by jiaweiwei

Subject: [PATCH]Remove a warning for drivers/edac/i82975x_edac.c

From: Harry Wei <[email protected]>

When i compile 2.6.39.1, a warning shows like below.
This patch can fix the warning. And i works well with
my PC.

[...]
CC [M] drivers/edac/e752x_edac.o
CC [M] drivers/edac/i82875p_edac.o
CC [M] drivers/edac/i82975x_edac.o
drivers/edac/i82975x_edac.c: In function ���i82975x_process_error_info���:
drivers/edac/i82975x_edac.c:298: warning: integer constant is too large for ���unsigned long��� type
CC [M] drivers/edac/i3000_edac.o
CC [M] drivers/edac/i3200_edac.o
CC [M] drivers/edac/x38_edac.o
CC [M] drivers/edac/i82860_edac.o
[...]

Signed-off-by: Harry Wei <[email protected]>

Index: prj/drivers/edac/i82975x_edac.c
===================================================================
--- prj.orig/drivers/edac/i82975x_edac.c 2011-06-04 10:09:55.351174516 +0800
+++ prj/drivers/edac/i82975x_edac.c 2011-06-04 10:10:30.875168437 +0800
@@ -293,9 +293,9 @@
info->errsts = info->errsts2;
}

- page = (unsigned long) info->eap;
+ page = (unsigned long long) info->eap;
if (info->xeap & 1)
- page |= 0x100000000ul;
+ page |= 0x100000000ull;
chan = page & 1;
page >>= 1;
offst = page & ((1 << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1);

2011-06-06 20:37:19

by Randy Dunlap

Subject: Re: [PATCH]Remove a warning for drivers/edac/i82975x_edac.c

On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 10:22:21 +0800 Harry Wei wrote:

> From: Harry Wei <[email protected]>
>
> When i compile 2.6.39.1, a warning shows like below.
> This patch can fix the warning. And i works well with
> my PC.

Hi Harry,

Does "works well with my PC" mean that you boot-tested this patch
or just compile-tested it?

and if you boot-tested it, do you have hardware that actually
exercises this code path?

> [...]
> CC [M] drivers/edac/e752x_edac.o
> CC [M] drivers/edac/i82875p_edac.o
> CC [M] drivers/edac/i82975x_edac.o
> drivers/edac/i82975x_edac.c: In function ���i82975x_process_error_info���:
> drivers/edac/i82975x_edac.c:298: warning: integer constant is too large for ���unsigned long��� type
> CC [M] drivers/edac/i3000_edac.o
> CC [M] drivers/edac/i3200_edac.o
> CC [M] drivers/edac/x38_edac.o
> CC [M] drivers/edac/i82860_edac.o
> [...]
>
> Signed-off-by: Harry Wei <[email protected]>
>
> Index: prj/drivers/edac/i82975x_edac.c
> ===================================================================
> --- prj.orig/drivers/edac/i82975x_edac.c 2011-06-04 10:09:55.351174516 +0800
> +++ prj/drivers/edac/i82975x_edac.c 2011-06-04 10:10:30.875168437 +0800
> @@ -293,9 +293,9 @@
> info->errsts = info->errsts2;
> }
>
> - page = (unsigned long) info->eap;
> + page = (unsigned long long) info->eap;

but page is still declared as unsigned long. should it be unsigned long long?

> if (info->xeap & 1)
> - page |= 0x100000000ul;
> + page |= 0x100000000ull;
> chan = page & 1;
> page >>= 1;
> offst = page & ((1 << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1);


---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***

2011-06-07 01:12:20

by jiaweiwei

Subject: Re: [PATCH]Remove a warning for drivers/edac/i82975x_edac.c

On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 01:36:52PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 10:22:21 +0800 Harry Wei wrote:
>
> > From: Harry Wei <[email protected]>
> >
> > When i compile 2.6.39.1, a warning shows like below.
> > This patch can fix the warning. And i works well with
> > my PC.
>
> Hi Harry,
>
> Does "works well with my PC" mean that you boot-tested this patch
> or just compile-tested it?
No, i just test with the following codes.

#include <stdio.h>

int main(void)
{
unsigned long a;

a = 0x100000000ul;
printf("%lu\n", a);
return 0;
}
jiawei@jiawei-laptop:~/GTK$ gcc 5.c -Wall -o 1
5.c: In function ‘main’:
5.c:7: warning: integer constant is too large for ‘unsigned long’ type
5.c:7: warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type

But if you program it like below, it is well for us.

#include <stdio.h>

int main(void)
{
unsigned long long a;

a = 0x100000000ull;

printf("%llu\n", a);
return 0;
}

>
> and if you boot-tested it, do you have hardware that actually
> exercises this code path?
>
> > [...]
> > CC [M] drivers/edac/e752x_edac.o
> > CC [M] drivers/edac/i82875p_edac.o
> > CC [M] drivers/edac/i82975x_edac.o
> > drivers/edac/i82975x_edac.c: In function ?????????i82975x_process_error_info?????????:
> > drivers/edac/i82975x_edac.c:298: warning: integer constant is too large for ?????????unsigned long????????? type
> > CC [M] drivers/edac/i3000_edac.o
> > CC [M] drivers/edac/i3200_edac.o
> > CC [M] drivers/edac/x38_edac.o
> > CC [M] drivers/edac/i82860_edac.o
> > [...]
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Harry Wei <[email protected]>
> >
> > Index: prj/drivers/edac/i82975x_edac.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- prj.orig/drivers/edac/i82975x_edac.c 2011-06-04 10:09:55.351174516 +0800
> > +++ prj/drivers/edac/i82975x_edac.c 2011-06-04 10:10:30.875168437 +0800
> > @@ -293,9 +293,9 @@
> > info->errsts = info->errsts2;
> > }
> >
> > - page = (unsigned long) info->eap;
> > + page = (unsigned long long) info->eap;
>
> but page is still declared as unsigned long. should it be unsigned long long?
I think it should be unsigned long long, unsigned long can not store
0x100000000. It has been beyond its reach. So unsigned long long is
well for us.
>
> > if (info->xeap & 1)
> > - page |= 0x100000000ul;
> > + page |= 0x100000000ull;
> > chan = page & 1;
> > page >>= 1;
> > offst = page & ((1 << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1);
>
>