Re: Bogus sparse warning?

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Christopher Li wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 10:28:19AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > (It is perfectly proper to have a typedef that is actually of a function 
> > type, so this looks like a sparse bug regardless, it looks just as if we 
> > don't turn a function type into a function pointer type when we see it as 
> > an argument in the declaration).
> 
> Yes, we does, in examine_fn_arguments(). But not correctly inherent the attribute bits.

Ahh. 

> I think this patch should fix it, I haven't try it myself on this bug yet.
> It works on a different test case "function vs function ptr".
> It has been posted to the list before. It is in my series as well.

This looks good. Ack.  Josh?

The only thing that I reacted to is that maybe we should change the

	s->ctype.modifiers = 0;

a few lines down into a

	s->ctype.modifiers &= ~MOD_PTRINHERIT;

or something? Although the normal "create_pointer()" function just leaves 
it entirely alone. So I don't know what the correct thing to do is. I 
wonder why I did that in the first place (that code is _old_).

		Linus