On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 05:02:56PM -0700, Geoff Levand wrote:
> Add -Wstrict-prototypes to EXTRA_CFLAGS and fix the powerpc compiler warnings.
>
> Signed-off-by: Geoff Levand <geoffrey.levand at am.sony.com>
Hi Geoff,
I'm all for fixing up this kind of thing, but I'm not sure that
hardcoding it into -Wstrict-prototypes is the right way to go.
People who want -Wstrict-prototypes can just add it to CFLAGS
in the environment and fix problems from there. Then again, it is
kind of nice to get rid of all this crap :-)
Could you split the configure.ac patch and the fixes into two separate
patches so that they can be considered separtely?
> ---
> configure.ac | 2 -
> kexec/arch/ppc64/kexec-ppc64.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
>
> --- kexec-tools-hacked.orig/configure.ac
> +++ kexec-tools-hacked/configure.ac
> @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ if test "${host_alias}" ; then
> OBJDIR="$OBJDIR-${host_alias}"
> fi
>
> -EXTRA_CFLAGS='-Wall -g -fno-strict-aliasing $(CPPFLAGS) $(EXTRA_CPPFLAGS)'
> +EXTRA_CFLAGS='-Wall -g -fno-strict-aliasing -Wstrict-prototypes $(CPPFLAGS) $(EXTRA_CPPFLAGS)'
> BUILD_CFLAGS='-O2 -Wall $(CPPFLAGS)'
>
> # Check whether ppc64. Add -m64 for building 64-bit binary
> --- kexec-tools-hacked.orig/kexec/arch/ppc64/kexec-ppc64.c
> +++ kexec-tools-hacked/kexec/arch/ppc64/kexec-ppc64.c
> @@ -45,10 +45,7 @@ unsigned long long crash_base, crash_siz
> unsigned int rtas_base, rtas_size;
> int max_memory_ranges;
>
> -static int sort_base_ranges();
> -
> -
> -static void cleanup_memory_ranges()
> +static void cleanup_memory_ranges(void)
> {
> if (memory_range)
> free(memory_range);
> @@ -64,7 +61,7 @@ static void cleanup_memory_ranges()
> * Allocate memory for various data structures used to hold
> * values of different memory ranges
> */
> -static int alloc_memory_ranges()
> +static int alloc_memory_ranges(void)
> {
> int memory_range_len;
>
> @@ -105,7 +102,7 @@ err1:
> * max_memory_ranges variable. This variable replaces MAX_MEMORY_RANGES
> * macro used earlier.
> */
> -static int count_memory_ranges()
> +static int count_memory_ranges(void)
> {
> char device_tree[256] = "/proc/device-tree/";
> struct dirent *dentry;
> @@ -132,8 +129,32 @@ static int count_memory_ranges()
> return 0;
> }
>
> +/* Sort the base ranges in memory - this is useful for ensuring that our
> + * ranges are in ascending order, even if device-tree read of memory nodes
> + * is done differently. Also, could be used for other range coalescing later
> + */
> +static int sort_base_ranges(void)
> +{
> + int i, j;
> + unsigned long long tstart, tend;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < nr_memory_ranges - 1; i++) {
> + for (j = 0; j < nr_memory_ranges - i - 1; j++) {
> + if (base_memory_range[j].start > base_memory_range[j+1].start) {
> + tstart = base_memory_range[j].start;
> + tend = base_memory_range[j].end;
> + base_memory_range[j].start = base_memory_range[j+1].start;
> + base_memory_range[j].end = base_memory_range[j+1].end;
> + base_memory_range[j+1].start = tstart;
> + base_memory_range[j+1].end = tend;
> + }
> + }
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> /* Get base memory ranges */
> -static int get_base_ranges()
> +static int get_base_ranges(void)
> {
> int local_memory_ranges = 0;
> char device_tree[256] = "/proc/device-tree/";
> @@ -204,32 +225,8 @@ static int get_base_ranges()
> return 0;
> }
The change to sort_base_ranges() seems like a lot of diff for very
little change. Is it whitespace fixes. If so could you put that in a
separate patch?
> -/* Sort the base ranges in memory - this is useful for ensuring that our
> - * ranges are in ascending order, even if device-tree read of memory nodes
> - * is done differently. Also, could be used for other range coalescing later
> - */
> -static int sort_base_ranges()
> -{
> - int i, j;
> - unsigned long long tstart, tend;
> -
> - for (i = 0; i < nr_memory_ranges - 1; i++) {
> - for (j = 0; j < nr_memory_ranges - i - 1; j++) {
> - if (base_memory_range[j].start > base_memory_range[j+1].start) {
> - tstart = base_memory_range[j].start;
> - tend = base_memory_range[j].end;
> - base_memory_range[j].start = base_memory_range[j+1].start;
> - base_memory_range[j].end = base_memory_range[j+1].end;
> - base_memory_range[j+1].start = tstart;
> - base_memory_range[j+1].end = tend;
> - }
> - }
> - }
> - return 0;
> -}
> -
> /* Sort the exclude ranges in memory */
> -static int sort_ranges()
> +static int sort_ranges(void)
> {
> int i, j;
> unsigned long long tstart, tend;
>
> --
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> kexec mailing list
> kexec at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
--
Horms
H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/
W: http://www.valinux.co.jp/en/
