Impact: Fix compilation warning.
CC arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.o
arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c: In function `default_spin_lock_flags':
arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c:12: warning: passing arg 1 of
`__raw_spin_lock' from incompatible pointer type
This patch fixes the above warning. __raw_spin_lock(lock) is declared
when CONFIG_SMP is defined. Thus, a call to __raw_spin_lock requires
checking CONFIG_SMP is defined or not.
Signed-off-by: Rakib Mullick <[email protected]>
--- linux-2.6-orig/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c 2008-12-05
19:53:15.000000000 +0600
+++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c 2008-12-07
23:52:59.000000000 +0600
@@ -9,7 +9,9 @@
static void default_spin_lock_flags(struct raw_spinlock *lock,
unsigned long flags)
{
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
__raw_spin_lock(lock);
+#endif
}
struct pv_lock_ops pv_lock_ops = {
* Rakib Mullick <[email protected]> wrote:
> Impact: Fix compilation warning.
>
> CC arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.o
> arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c: In function `default_spin_lock_flags':
> arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c:12: warning: passing arg 1 of
> `__raw_spin_lock' from incompatible pointer type
>
> This patch fixes the above warning. __raw_spin_lock(lock) is declared
> when CONFIG_SMP is defined. Thus, a call to __raw_spin_lock requires
> checking CONFIG_SMP is defined or not.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rakib Mullick <[email protected]>
>
> --- linux-2.6-orig/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c 2008-12-05
> 19:53:15.000000000 +0600
> +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c 2008-12-07
> 23:52:59.000000000 +0600
> @@ -9,7 +9,9 @@
>
> static void default_spin_lock_flags(struct raw_spinlock *lock,
> unsigned long flags)
> {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> __raw_spin_lock(lock);
> +#endif
no - this just works around the compiler warning.
Look at the real fix below i did some time ago. If you are into fixing
warnings you should try tip/master, that has a ton of warning fixes
already:
http://people.redhat.com/mingo/tip.git/README
Ingo
------------------------>
>From ecd05381e26b9a61e49fa485baea1595bd3d1b40 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:09:57 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] x86: fix default_spin_lock_flags() prototype
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
these warnings:
arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c: In function ‘default_spin_lock_flags’:
arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c:12: warning: passing argument 1 of ‘__raw_spin_lock’ from incompatible pointer type
arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c: At top level:
arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c:11: warning: ‘default_spin_lock_flags’ defined but not used
showed that the prototype of default_spin_lock_flags() was confused about
what type spinlocks have.
the proper type on UP is raw_spinlock_t.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c | 3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c
index 0e9f198..95777b0 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c
@@ -7,7 +7,8 @@
#include <asm/paravirt.h>
-static void default_spin_lock_flags(struct raw_spinlock *lock, unsigned long flags)
+static inline void
+default_spin_lock_flags(raw_spinlock_t *lock, unsigned long flags)
{
__raw_spin_lock(lock);
}
On 12/8/08, Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> * Rakib Mullick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> no - this just works around the compiler warning.
>
> Look at the real fix below i did some time ago. If you are into fixing
> warnings you should try tip/master, that has a ton of warning fixes
> already:
>
> http://people.redhat.com/mingo/tip.git/README
>
> Ingo
Thanks, Ingo for explanation. In 'default_spin_lock_flags' function ,
the 2nd argument unsigned long flags isn't used in the function. Is it
necessary to keep it ?
Thanks,
Rakib.
* Rakib Mullick <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/8/08, Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > * Rakib Mullick <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > no - this just works around the compiler warning.
> >
> > Look at the real fix below i did some time ago. If you are into fixing
> > warnings you should try tip/master, that has a ton of warning fixes
> > already:
> >
> > http://people.redhat.com/mingo/tip.git/README
> >
> > Ingo
> Thanks, Ingo for explanation. In 'default_spin_lock_flags' function ,
> the 2nd argument unsigned long flags isn't used in the function. Is it
> necessary to keep it ?
yes, it's a function pointer used in a generic template:
.spin_lock_flags = default_spin_lock_flags,
.spin_lock_flags() expects that parameter signature - even if in specific
implementations the parameter might be unused.
Ingo
Ingo