From: Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net>
To: Yuanhan Liu <yliu.null@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Wei Yang <weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kfifo: remove unnecessary type check
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 07:38:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1351229911.12511.1.camel@wall-e> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1351215971-11639-1-git-send-email-yliu.null@gmail.com>
Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 09:46 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
> From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
>
> Firstly, this kind of type check doesn't work. It does something similay
> like following:
> void * __dummy = NULL;
> __buf = __dummy;
>
> __dummy is defined as void *. Thus it will not trigger warnings as
> expected.
>
> Second, we don't need that kind of check. Since the prototype
> of __kfifo_out is:
> unsigned int __kfifo_out(struct __kfifo *fifo, void *buf, unsigned int len)
>
> buf is defined as void *, so we don't need do the type check. Remove it.
>
> LINK: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/25/386
> LINK: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/25/584
>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Wei Yang <weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net>
> Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
> Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> Signed-off-by: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> include/linux/kfifo.h | 20 --------------------
> 1 file changed, 20 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/kfifo.h b/include/linux/kfifo.h
> index 10308c6..b8c1d03 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kfifo.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kfifo.h
> @@ -390,10 +390,6 @@ __kfifo_int_must_check_helper( \
> unsigned int __ret; \
> const size_t __recsize = sizeof(*__tmp->rectype); \
> struct __kfifo *__kfifo = &__tmp->kfifo; \
> - if (0) { \
> - typeof(__tmp->ptr_const) __dummy __attribute__ ((unused)); \
> - __dummy = (typeof(__val))NULL; \
> - } \
> if (__recsize) \
> __ret = __kfifo_in_r(__kfifo, __val, sizeof(*__val), \
> __recsize); \
> @@ -432,8 +428,6 @@ __kfifo_uint_must_check_helper( \
> unsigned int __ret; \
> const size_t __recsize = sizeof(*__tmp->rectype); \
> struct __kfifo *__kfifo = &__tmp->kfifo; \
> - if (0) \
> - __val = (typeof(__tmp->ptr))0; \
> if (__recsize) \
> __ret = __kfifo_out_r(__kfifo, __val, sizeof(*__val), \
> __recsize); \
> @@ -473,8 +467,6 @@ __kfifo_uint_must_check_helper( \
> unsigned int __ret; \
> const size_t __recsize = sizeof(*__tmp->rectype); \
> struct __kfifo *__kfifo = &__tmp->kfifo; \
> - if (0) \
> - __val = (typeof(__tmp->ptr))NULL; \
> if (__recsize) \
> __ret = __kfifo_out_peek_r(__kfifo, __val, sizeof(*__val), \
> __recsize); \
> @@ -512,10 +504,6 @@ __kfifo_uint_must_check_helper( \
> unsigned long __n = (n); \
> const size_t __recsize = sizeof(*__tmp->rectype); \
> struct __kfifo *__kfifo = &__tmp->kfifo; \
> - if (0) { \
> - typeof(__tmp->ptr_const) __dummy __attribute__ ((unused)); \
> - __dummy = (typeof(__buf))NULL; \
> - } \
> (__recsize) ?\
> __kfifo_in_r(__kfifo, __buf, __n, __recsize) : \
> __kfifo_in(__kfifo, __buf, __n); \
> @@ -565,10 +553,6 @@ __kfifo_uint_must_check_helper( \
> unsigned long __n = (n); \
> const size_t __recsize = sizeof(*__tmp->rectype); \
> struct __kfifo *__kfifo = &__tmp->kfifo; \
> - if (0) { \
> - typeof(__tmp->ptr) __dummy = NULL; \
> - __buf = __dummy; \
> - } \
> (__recsize) ?\
> __kfifo_out_r(__kfifo, __buf, __n, __recsize) : \
> __kfifo_out(__kfifo, __buf, __n); \
> @@ -777,10 +761,6 @@ __kfifo_uint_must_check_helper( \
> unsigned long __n = (n); \
> const size_t __recsize = sizeof(*__tmp->rectype); \
> struct __kfifo *__kfifo = &__tmp->kfifo; \
> - if (0) { \
> - typeof(__tmp->ptr) __dummy __attribute__ ((unused)) = NULL; \
> - __buf = __dummy; \
> - } \
> (__recsize) ? \
> __kfifo_out_peek_r(__kfifo, __buf, __n, __recsize) : \
> __kfifo_out_peek(__kfifo, __buf, __n); \
Did you tried to compile the whole kernel including all the drivers with
your patch?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-26 5:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-26 1:46 [PATCH] kfifo: remove unnecessary type check Yuanhan Liu
2012-10-26 5:38 ` Stefani Seibold [this message]
2012-10-26 6:11 ` Yuanhan Liu
2012-10-26 6:51 ` Stefani Seibold
2012-10-26 7:17 ` Yuanhan Liu
2012-10-26 7:33 ` Yuanhan Liu
2012-10-26 9:26 ` Stefani Seibold
2012-10-26 13:04 ` Yuanhan Liu
2012-10-26 13:42 ` Stefani Seibold
2012-10-27 8:43 ` Yuanhan Liu
[not found] ` <20121026095244.GA815@richard.(null)>
2012-10-26 12:31 ` Yuanhan Liu
[not found] ` <20121027015558.GA3983@richard.(null)>
2012-10-27 8:48 ` Yuanhan Liu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1351229911.12511.1.camel@wall-e \
--to=stefani@seibold.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=yliu.null@gmail.com \
--cc=yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.