From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754382AbaJCSWM (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Oct 2014 14:22:12 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:41170 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753788AbaJCSVz (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Oct 2014 14:21:55 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 11:21:54 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Marek Szyprowski , Arnd Bergmann , Michal Nazarewicz , Grant Likely , Laura Abbott , Josh Cartwright , Joonsoo Kim , Kyungmin Park Subject: Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the akpm-current tree Message-Id: <20141003112154.92b5a47b2009293090d18f5a@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20141003173004.7ac4edce@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20141003173004.7ac4edce@canb.auug.org.au> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.2.0beta5 (GTK+ 2.24.10; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 3 Oct 2014 17:30:04 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > After merging the akpm-current tree, today's linux-next build (arm > multi_v7_defconfig) produced these warnings: > > drivers/base/dma-contiguous.c:244:2: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type > .device_init = rmem_cma_device_init, > ^ > drivers/base/dma-contiguous.c:244:2: warning: (near initialization for 'rmem_cma_ops.device_init') > drivers/base/dma-coherent.c:303:2: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type > .device_init = rmem_dma_device_init, > ^ > > Introduced by commit e92f6296f3a2 ("drivers: dma-coherent: add > initialization from device tree"). This init routine is supposed to > return void ... I'm a bit reluctant to just go in and change rmem_cma_device_init(). Why does it test for rmem->priv==NULL? Can that really happen? Why? Is it a legitimate state? And why does dev_set_cma_area() test for dev==NULL? Can that really happen? Is it legitimate? Is all this stuff just papering over other bugs? The whole thing could do with a bit of an audit and cleanup, I suspect. Get the states and initialization sequences and error checking all sorted out, then get rid of all these tests for NULL.