From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751703Ab1GLI1Z (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2011 04:27:25 -0400 Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:49990 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750813Ab1GLI1X (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2011 04:27:23 -0400 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 Message-ID: <4E1C055C.1030103@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:27:08 +0900 From: KOSAKI Motohiro User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ja; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tony.luck@intel.com CC: fenghua.yu@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: ia64: replace old cpumask functions with new one References: <4E031B97.2010609@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (2011/07/07 6:14), Tony Luck wrote: > 2011/6/23 KOSAKI Motohiro : >> We plan to remove old obsolete cpumask functions and plan to >> change task->cpus_allowed implementation in future. > ... >> arch/ia64/kernel/smpboot.c | 56 +++++++++++++++--------------- > > I get some new warnings in this file with your patch: > > > arch/ia64/kernel/smpboot.c:454: warning: passing argument 2 of > ‘cpumask_set_cpu’ discards qualifiers from pointer target type > arch/ia64/kernel/smpboot.c:581: warning: passing argument 1 of > ‘cpumask_clear’ discards qualifiers from pointer target type > arch/ia64/kernel/smpboot.c:613: warning: passing argument 2 of > ‘cpumask_set_cpu’ discards qualifiers from pointer target type > arch/ia64/kernel/smpboot.c:637: warning: passing argument 2 of > ‘cpumask_set_cpu’ discards qualifiers from pointer target type > arch/ia64/kernel/smpboot.c:745: warning: passing argument 2 of > ‘cpumask_clear_cpu’ discards qualifiers from pointer target type > > Four of the five involve "cpu_callin_mask" which is "volatile", the other is for > "cpu_present_mask" - not sure what the problem is for this one. Sorry for the delay. I'm sorry for the annoying you. But ummm.. I can't understand the author expect which effect by this volatile. If I am correct, its volatile has no effect. we can simply remove it. So, I'll respin this. Thanks.