Re: [PATCH v2]ata:ahci.c Fix warning: comparison between 'enum <anonymous>' and 'enum <anonymous>'

["Justin P. Mattock" <justinmattock@gmail.com>]

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