* x86/MCE: drop bogus const modifier from AMD's bank4_names()
@ 2015-01-23 8:32 Jan Beulich
2015-01-23 9:58 ` Borislav Petkov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2015-01-23 8:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Borislav Petkov, tony.luck; +Cc: linux-kernel
The compiler validly warns about it being ignored.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
---
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_amd.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- 3.19-rc5/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_amd.c
+++ 3.19-rc5-x86-MCE-AMD-bank4_names/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_amd.c
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ static inline bool is_shared_bank(int ba
return (bank == 4);
}
-static const char * const bank4_names(struct threshold_block *b)
+static const char *bank4_names(const struct threshold_block *b)
{
switch (b->address) {
/* MSR4_MISC0 */
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: x86/MCE: drop bogus const modifier from AMD's bank4_names()
2015-01-23 8:32 x86/MCE: drop bogus const modifier from AMD's bank4_names() Jan Beulich
@ 2015-01-23 9:58 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-01-23 10:05 ` Jan Beulich
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Borislav Petkov @ 2015-01-23 9:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich; +Cc: tony.luck, linux-kernel
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 08:32:01AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> The compiler validly warns about it being ignored.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Applied, thanks.
Out of curiosity: When do you see this? Building with
-Wignored-qualifiers or -Wextra?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: x86/MCE: drop bogus const modifier from AMD's bank4_names()
2015-01-23 9:58 ` Borislav Petkov
@ 2015-01-23 10:05 ` Jan Beulich
2015-01-23 10:16 ` Borislav Petkov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2015-01-23 10:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Borislav Petkov; +Cc: tony.luck, linux-kernel
>>> On 23.01.15 at 10:58, <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 08:32:01AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> The compiler validly warns about it being ignored.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>
> Applied, thanks.
>
> Out of curiosity: When do you see this? Building with
> -Wignored-qualifiers or -Wextra?
It's been a long while ago that I noticed and fixed the warning, so
I don't recall the details. What I do know is that I didn't force any
extra flags, and that a similar issue elsewhere in the tree (fixed
in 3.19-rc5) triggered the same warning in at least one of my builds
(again without any extra warning options) in -rc4.
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: x86/MCE: drop bogus const modifier from AMD's bank4_names()
2015-01-23 10:05 ` Jan Beulich
@ 2015-01-23 10:16 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-01-23 15:04 ` U.Mutlu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Borislav Petkov @ 2015-01-23 10:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich; +Cc: tony.luck, linux-kernel
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:05:40AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> It's been a long while ago that I noticed and fixed the warning, so
> I don't recall the details. What I do know is that I didn't force any
> extra flags, and that a similar issue elsewhere in the tree (fixed
> in 3.19-rc5) triggered the same warning in at least one of my builds
> (again without any extra warning options) in -rc4.
Older compiler maybe. Not that it is worth wasting too much time on it
though...
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: x86/MCE: drop bogus const modifier from AMD's bank4_names()
2015-01-23 10:16 ` Borislav Petkov
@ 2015-01-23 15:04 ` U.Mutlu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: U.Mutlu @ 2015-01-23 15:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Jan Beulich wrote, On 01/23/2015 09:32 AM:
>
> -static const char * const bank4_names(struct threshold_block *b)
> +static const char *bank4_names(const struct threshold_block *b)
There is a big difference in the return type, cf. below.
Of course, if possible, the more const the better.
Borislav Petkov wrote, On 01/23/2015 11:16 AM:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:05:40AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> It's been a long while ago that I noticed and fixed the warning, so
>> I don't recall the details. What I do know is that I didn't force any
>> extra flags, and that a similar issue elsewhere in the tree (fixed
>> in 3.19-rc5) triggered the same warning in at least one of my builds
>> (again without any extra warning options) in -rc4.
>
> Older compiler maybe. Not that it is worth wasting too much time on it
> though...
int main()
{
char mem1[] = "foo";
char mem2[] = "bar";
const char* const p1 = mem1; // both ptr and content are const
const char* p2 = mem2; // content is const, but not the ptr
// ++p1; // not possible b/c p1 is const
++p2; // possible b/c p2 is not const
// *p1 = 'X'; // not possible b/c content of p1 is const
// *p2 = 'A'; // not possible b/c content of p2 is const
return 0;
}
cu
Uenal
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-01-23 15:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-01-23 8:32 x86/MCE: drop bogus const modifier from AMD's bank4_names() Jan Beulich
2015-01-23 9:58 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-01-23 10:05 ` Jan Beulich
2015-01-23 10:16 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-01-23 15:04 ` U.Mutlu
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.