Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87woyw8pxe.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
References: <20180225172236.29650-1-malat@debian.org> <20180225172236.29650-2-malat@debian.org>
 <87woyw8pxe.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
From:   Mathieu Malaterre <malat@debian.org>
Date:   Thu, 1 Mar 2018 08:01:12 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+7wUsxsZrjHY8=TSUiMEgGMm72XyQRW47b7oqNjFGeFKLMd+w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/21] powerpc: Remove warning on array size when empty
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 3:55 AM, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote=
:
> Mathieu Malaterre <malat@debian.org> writes:
>
>> When neither CONFIG_ALTIVEC, nor CONFIG_VSX or CONFIG_PPC64 is defined, =
the
>> array feature_properties is defined as an empty array, which in turn
>> triggers the following warning (treated as error on W=3D1):
>>
>>   CC      arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.o
>> arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c: In function =E2=80=98check_cpu_feature_prope=
rties=E2=80=99:
>> arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c:298:16: error: comparison of unsigned express=
ion < 0 is always false [-Werror=3Dtype-limits]
>>   for (i =3D 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(feature_properties); ++i, ++fp) {
>>                 ^
>> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
>
> Ugh, that's annoying.
>
> This seems to work?
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
> index 4dffef947b8a..5215119e249c 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
> @@ -291,11 +291,11 @@ static inline void identical_pvr_fixup(unsigned lon=
g node)
>
>  static void __init check_cpu_feature_properties(unsigned long node)
>  {
> -       unsigned long i;
>         struct feature_property *fp =3D feature_properties;
>         const __be32 *prop;
> +       int i;
>
> -       for (i =3D 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(feature_properties); ++i, ++fp) {
> +       for (i =3D 0; i < (int)ARRAY_SIZE(feature_properties); ++i, ++fp)=
 {
>                 prop =3D of_get_flat_dt_prop(node, fp->name, NULL);
>                 if (prop && be32_to_cpup(prop) >=3D fp->min_value) {
>                         cur_cpu_spec->cpu_features |=3D fp->cpu_feature;
>

Indeed that looks like the less invasive solution, I'll re-submit.

Should I resubmit the entire patch series (21 indep patches) or
re-submit only the 3 patches that were discussed (as part of a
different series) ?

Thanks