* shouldn't "irq" be module_param_array instead of module_param in scsi/gdth.c ?
@ 2005-01-30 16:01 Jesper Juhl
2005-01-30 16:48 ` Randy.Dunlap
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jesper Juhl @ 2005-01-30 16:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: Achim Leubner, Boji Tony Kannanthanam, Johannes Dinner, linux-scsi
This little warning made me take a closer look :
drivers/scsi/gdth.c:645: warning: return from incompatible pointer type
And line 645 looks like this :
module_param(irq, int, 0);
looking a bit up in the file I find :
/* IRQ list for GDT3000/3020 EISA controllers */
static int irq[MAXHA] __initdata =
{0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,
0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff};
That certainly looks like an array to me, so I'm wondering if something
like this patch would be correct? I'm not familliar enough with
module_param* to be completely confident, but this silences the warning.
Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk>
--- linux-2.6.11-rc2-bk7-orig/drivers/scsi/gdth.c 2005-01-22 21:59:46.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.11-rc2-bk7/drivers/scsi/gdth.c 2005-01-30 16:52:45.000000000 +0100
@@ -642,7 +642,7 @@ static int probe_eisa_isa = 0;
static int force_dma32 = 0;
/* parameters for modprobe/insmod */
-module_param(irq, int, 0);
+module_param_array(irq, int, NULL, 0);
module_param(disable, int, 0);
module_param(reserve_mode, int, 0);
module_param_array(reserve_list, int, NULL, 0);
--
Kind regards,
Jesper Juhl
PS. Please CC me on replies.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: shouldn't "irq" be module_param_array instead of module_param in scsi/gdth.c ?
2005-01-30 16:01 shouldn't "irq" be module_param_array instead of module_param in scsi/gdth.c ? Jesper Juhl
@ 2005-01-30 16:48 ` Randy.Dunlap
2005-01-30 17:06 ` Jesper Juhl
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Randy.Dunlap @ 2005-01-30 16:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jesper Juhl
Cc: linux-kernel, Achim Leubner, Boji Tony Kannanthanam,
Johannes Dinner, linux-scsi
Jesper Juhl wrote:
> This little warning made me take a closer look :
> drivers/scsi/gdth.c:645: warning: return from incompatible pointer type
>
> And line 645 looks like this :
>
> module_param(irq, int, 0);
>
> looking a bit up in the file I find :
>
> /* IRQ list for GDT3000/3020 EISA controllers */
> static int irq[MAXHA] __initdata =
> {0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,
> 0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff};
>
> That certainly looks like an array to me, so I'm wondering if something
> like this patch would be correct? I'm not familliar enough with
> module_param* to be completely confident, but this silences the warning.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk>
>
> --- linux-2.6.11-rc2-bk7-orig/drivers/scsi/gdth.c 2005-01-22 21:59:46.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux-2.6.11-rc2-bk7/drivers/scsi/gdth.c 2005-01-30 16:52:45.000000000 +0100
> @@ -642,7 +642,7 @@ static int probe_eisa_isa = 0;
> static int force_dma32 = 0;
>
> /* parameters for modprobe/insmod */
> -module_param(irq, int, 0);
> +module_param_array(irq, int, NULL, 0);
> module_param(disable, int, 0);
> module_param(reserve_mode, int, 0);
> module_param_array(reserve_list, int, NULL, 0);
Yep, same as:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=110540330511653&w=2
--
~Randy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: shouldn't "irq" be module_param_array instead of module_param in scsi/gdth.c ?
2005-01-30 17:06 ` Jesper Juhl
@ 2005-01-30 17:01 ` Randy.Dunlap
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Randy.Dunlap @ 2005-01-30 17:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jesper Juhl
Cc: linux-kernel, Achim Leubner, Boji Tony Kannanthanam,
Johannes Dinner, linux-scsi
Jesper Juhl wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
>
>
>>Jesper Juhl wrote:
>>
>>>This little warning made me take a closer look : drivers/scsi/gdth.c:645:
>>>warning: return from incompatible pointer type
>>>
>>>And line 645 looks like this :
>>>
>>>module_param(irq, int, 0);
>>>
>>>looking a bit up in the file I find :
>>>
>>>/* IRQ list for GDT3000/3020 EISA controllers */
>>>static int irq[MAXHA] __initdata =
>>>{0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,
>>> 0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff};
>>>
>>>That certainly looks like an array to me, so I'm wondering if something like
>>>this patch would be correct? I'm not familliar enough with module_param* to
>>>be completely confident, but this silences the warning.
>>>
>>>Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk>
>>>
>>>--- linux-2.6.11-rc2-bk7-orig/drivers/scsi/gdth.c 2005-01-22
>>>21:59:46.000000000 +0100
>>>+++ linux-2.6.11-rc2-bk7/drivers/scsi/gdth.c 2005-01-30 16:52:45.000000000
>>>+0100
>>>@@ -642,7 +642,7 @@ static int probe_eisa_isa = 0;
>>> static int force_dma32 = 0;
>>> /* parameters for modprobe/insmod */
>>>-module_param(irq, int, 0);
>>>+module_param_array(irq, int, NULL, 0);
>>> module_param(disable, int, 0);
>>> module_param(reserve_mode, int, 0);
>>> module_param_array(reserve_list, int, NULL, 0);
>>
>>Yep, same as:
>>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=110540330511653&w=2
>>
>
> Ohh, I was not aware of that patch, guess I should have searched the
> archives before posting. Thank you for the info.
Or I should have added to my reply:
Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rddunlap@osdl.org> 8:}
--
~Randy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: shouldn't "irq" be module_param_array instead of module_param in scsi/gdth.c ?
2005-01-30 16:48 ` Randy.Dunlap
@ 2005-01-30 17:06 ` Jesper Juhl
2005-01-30 17:01 ` Randy.Dunlap
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jesper Juhl @ 2005-01-30 17:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Randy.Dunlap
Cc: linux-kernel, Achim Leubner, Boji Tony Kannanthanam,
Johannes Dinner, linux-scsi
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > This little warning made me take a closer look : drivers/scsi/gdth.c:645:
> > warning: return from incompatible pointer type
> >
> > And line 645 looks like this :
> >
> > module_param(irq, int, 0);
> >
> > looking a bit up in the file I find :
> >
> > /* IRQ list for GDT3000/3020 EISA controllers */
> > static int irq[MAXHA] __initdata =
> > {0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,
> > 0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff};
> >
> > That certainly looks like an array to me, so I'm wondering if something like
> > this patch would be correct? I'm not familliar enough with module_param* to
> > be completely confident, but this silences the warning.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk>
> >
> > --- linux-2.6.11-rc2-bk7-orig/drivers/scsi/gdth.c 2005-01-22
> > 21:59:46.000000000 +0100
> > +++ linux-2.6.11-rc2-bk7/drivers/scsi/gdth.c 2005-01-30 16:52:45.000000000
> > +0100
> > @@ -642,7 +642,7 @@ static int probe_eisa_isa = 0;
> > static int force_dma32 = 0;
> > /* parameters for modprobe/insmod */
> > -module_param(irq, int, 0);
> > +module_param_array(irq, int, NULL, 0);
> > module_param(disable, int, 0);
> > module_param(reserve_mode, int, 0);
> > module_param_array(reserve_list, int, NULL, 0);
>
> Yep, same as:
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=110540330511653&w=2
>
Ohh, I was not aware of that patch, guess I should have searched the
archives before posting. Thank you for the info.
--
Jesper
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-01-30 17:13 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-01-30 16:01 shouldn't "irq" be module_param_array instead of module_param in scsi/gdth.c ? Jesper Juhl
2005-01-30 16:48 ` Randy.Dunlap
2005-01-30 17:06 ` Jesper Juhl
2005-01-30 17:01 ` Randy.Dunlap
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).