From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>
Subject: Re: [xen-unstable bisection] complete build-amd64
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:51:20 +0100
Message-ID: <20120127095120.GA12283@aepfle.de>
References: <E1RqT39-0004qP-B6@woking.xci-test.com>
	<20257.36117.343474.863135@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20257.36117.343474.863135@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Andres Lagar-Cavilla <andres@lagarcavilla.org>, Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Thu, Jan 26, Ian Jackson wrote:

> cc1: warnings being treated as errors
> xc_mem_paging.c: In function 'xc_mem_paging_load':
> xc_mem_paging.c:90: error: statement with no effect
> make[3]: *** [xc_mem_paging.o] Error 1
> make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/osstest/build.11617.build-amd64/xen-unstable/stubdom/libxc-x86_64'
> make[2]: *** [build] Error 2
> make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/osstest/build.11617.build-amd64/xen-unstable/stubdom/libxc-x86_64'
> make[1]: *** [libxc-x86_64/libxenctrl.a] Error 2
> make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....

As Andrew Morton put it once: "We code in C, not in cpp".

extras/mini-os/include/posix/sys/mman.h:19:#define munlock(addr, len) ((void)(addr), (void)(len), 0)

As such, that define should be "static inline munlock(const void *addr, size_t len) { return 0; }".
And now that I actually look at that header, mlock should be changed as
well. All this "(void)fn()" mess is really confusing.

Olaf