On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:35 AM, Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks to spatch, then a sweep for for_each_cpu_mask => for_each_cpu.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I'm seeing a bunch of warnings building the ia64 tree:
arch/ia64/kernel/smpboot.c:437: warning: passing argument 2 of
'cpumask_set_cpu' discards qualifiers from pointer target type
arch/ia64/kernel/smpboot.c:478: warning: passing argument 2 of
'cpumask_test_cpu' discards qualifiers from pointer target type
arch/ia64/kernel/smpboot.c:484: warning: passing argument 2 of
'cpumask_test_cpu' discards qualifiers from pointer target type
arch/ia64/kernel/smpboot.c:544: warning: passing argument 2 of
'cpumask_set_cpu' discards qualifiers from pointer target type
arch/ia64/kernel/smpboot.c:568: warning: passing argument 2 of
'cpumask_set_cpu' discards qualifiers from pointer target type
arch/ia64/kernel/smpboot.c:676: warning: passing argument 2 of
'cpumask_clear_cpu' discards qualifiers from pointer target type
arch/ia64/kernel/smpboot.c:747: warning: passing argument 2 of
'cpumask_test_cpu' discards qualifiers from pointer target type
which track back to these lines from this commit:
$ git show 5d2068da8d339e4dff8f9b9a1246e6a79e2949d8 | grep cpu_callin_map
- cpu_set(cpuid, cpu_callin_map);
+ cpumask_set_cpu(cpuid, &cpu_callin_map);
- if (cpu_isset(cpu, cpu_callin_map))
+ if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &cpu_callin_map))
- if (!cpu_isset(cpu, cpu_callin_map)) {
+ if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &cpu_callin_map)) {
- cpu_set(0, cpu_callin_map);
+ cpumask_set_cpu(0, &cpu_callin_map);
- cpu_set(smp_processor_id(), cpu_callin_map);
+ cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &cpu_callin_map);
- cpu_clear(cpu, cpu_callin_map);
+ cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &cpu_callin_map);
- if (cpu_isset(cpu, cpu_callin_map))
+ if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &cpu_callin_map))
The problem being that cpu_callin_map is declared volatile,
which matched the arg type in the declarations for
cpu_set() and cpu_clear() ... but doesn't match the new
fangled cpumask_set_cpu() etc.
Now the new functions do go on to call set_bit()
etc. ... which *do* expect a volatile second argument.
Should cpumask_set_cpu() and friends specify a volatile argument???
-Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|