Re: [PATCH] usb/storage/initializers.c: fix signedness difference

[Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 03:36:42PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 22:23:42 +0100
> Marcin __lusarz <marcin.slusarz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > usb/storage/initializers.c: fix signedness difference
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Marcin __lusarz <marcin.slusarz@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/usb/storage/initializers.c |    3 ++-
> >  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/storage/initializers.c b/drivers/usb/storage/initializers.c
> > index ee5b42a..187dd1e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/storage/initializers.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/storage/initializers.c
> > @@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ int usb_stor_ucr61s2b_init(struct us_data *us)
> >  {
> >  	struct bulk_cb_wrap *bcb = (struct bulk_cb_wrap*) us->iobuf;
> >  	struct bulk_cs_wrap *bcs = (struct bulk_cs_wrap*) us->iobuf;
> > -	int res, partial;
> > +	int res;
> > +	unsigned int partial;
> >  	static char init_string[] = "\xec\x0a\x06\x00$PCCHIPS";
> >
> >  	US_DEBUGP("Sending UCR-61S2B initialization packet...\n");
>
> Often we just wouldn't bother about something this minor.
>
> But I see later on that we pass the address of `partial' into some other
> function and I am guessing that this produces some warning with some tool
> which you didn't tell us about?
it fixed 2 sparse warnings:
drivers/usb/storage/initializers.c:83:26: warning: incorrect type in argument 5 (different signedness)
drivers/usb/storage/initializers.c:83:26:    expected unsigned int *act_len
drivers/usb/storage/initializers.c:83:26:    got int *<noident>
drivers/usb/storage/initializers.c:89:26: warning: incorrect type in argument 5 (different signedness)
drivers/usb/storage/initializers.c:89:26:    expected unsigned int *act_len
drivers/usb/storage/initializers.c:89:26:    got int *<noident>

After you pointed out that I should include warnings in patch description,
I've sent this: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/15/157

Marcin