On 06/30/2010 12:11 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
On 06/30/2010 09:06 AM, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
Hmm, is this something we wanna go around the kernel and updating
sources? Or should we just flick a gcc option?
the flick a gcc option seems easier todo, but my guess its probably not
the right way of dealing with the issue(even a warning).
What does the extra warning buy us? There are several places which
use anonymous enums for constants and I can't see what the benefit of
this warning would be.
I don't think it buys us anything..think it's just saying "hey you have
two #defines with the same value" or something in that area(if Im
reading the warning correctly) funny thing is, is gcc should of done
the same with the original patch that I sent, as well as the second..
(but could be wrong).
And, just do WARN_ON((int)ATA_MAX_QUEUE> (int)AHCI_MAX_CMDS)
that builds clean. keep in mind I just compile tested, no rebooting or
anything. Should I just resend with what you posted, and call it that,
or is this something that needs more?
I think it would be better to first decide what to do about the
new warnings.
Thanks.
sure.. no problem.
cheers,
Justin P. Mattock
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
