[PATCH] removing e2fsprogs compiling warnings

[PATCH] removing e2fsprogs compiling warnings

[Coly Li]

This patch remove 3 compiling warning of current e2fsprogs git.

Best regards.

Coly



diff --git a/debugfs/set_fields.c b/debugfs/set_fields.c
index b50ff7c..ce0301f 100644
--- a/debugfs/set_fields.c
+++ b/debugfs/set_fields.c
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
 #include <stdlib.h>
 #include <ctype.h>
 #include <string.h>
+#include <strings.h>
 #include <time.h>
 #include <sys/types.h>
 #include <sys/stat.h>
diff --git a/lib/blkid/probe.c b/lib/blkid/probe.c
index 69a43b0..c8fffa1 100644
--- a/lib/blkid/probe.c
+++ b/lib/blkid/probe.c
@@ -585,8 +585,8 @@ static int probe_luks(struct blkid_probe *probe,
        unsigned char uuid[40];
        /* 168 is the offset to the 40 character uuid:
         * http://luks.endorphin.org/LUKS-on-disk-format.pdf */
-       strncpy(uuid, buf+168, 40);
-       blkid_set_tag(probe->dev, "UUID", uuid, sizeof(uuid));
+       strncpy((char *)uuid, (const char *)(buf+168), 40);
+       blkid_set_tag(probe->dev, "UUID", (const char *)uuid, sizeof(uuid));
        return 0;
 }

diff --git a/misc/badblocks.c b/misc/badblocks.c
index 88c5a74..29c5a5c 100644
--- a/misc/badblocks.c
+++ b/misc/badblocks.c
@@ -1012,7 +1012,7 @@ int main (int argc, char ** argv)
                }
        } else from_count = 0;
        if (from_count >= last_block) {
-           com_err (program_name, 0, _("invalid starting block (%d):
must be less than %lu"),
+           com_err (program_name, 0, _("invalid starting block (%lu):
must be less than %lu"),
                     (unsigned long) from_count, (unsigned long)
last_block);
            exit (1);
        }

Re: [PATCH] removing e2fsprogs compiling warnings

[Theodore Tso]

On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 03:18:04PM +0800, Coly Li wrote:
> This patch remove 3 compiling warning of current e2fsprogs git.

In the future, can you please include a "Signed-off-by" with your
patches?  This patch is simple enough that I'll apply it without it,
but for anything non-trivial I won't apply it without a DCO.

Thanks, regards,
	
						- Ted

Re: [PATCH] removing e2fsprogs compiling warnings

[Coly Li]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Theodore,

Do you mean  "Signed-off-by Coly Li <coyli@suse.de>" ?
I just though this is used for others to sign my patch :-) Should I add this to
the patch this time ?

Thanks



Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 03:18:04PM +0800, Coly Li wrote:
>> This patch remove 3 compiling warning of current e2fsprogs git.
> 
> In the future, can you please include a "Signed-off-by" with your
> patches?  This patch is simple enough that I'll apply it without it,
> but for anything non-trivial I won't apply it without a DCO.
> 
> Thanks, regards,
> 	
> 						- Ted
> 
> 

- --
Coly Li
SuSE PRC Labs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGtBeiuTp8cyZ5lTERAiwPAKCyoew5Y/20UghUsDkhYE2gJ9+1LwCeIyhI
wweynOLUgWP/9xHYqThk1i0=
=NfDi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [PATCH] removing e2fsprogs compiling warnings

[Coly Li]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

>Do you mean  "Signed-off-by Coly Li <coyli@suse.de>" ?
>I just though this is used for others to sign my patch  :-)  Should I add this
>to the patch this time ?

Oh, I find this patch is applied already. Thanks for noting Signed-off-by :-)

Coly
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGtCL5uTp8cyZ5lTERAgsBAKCfv1un8o+lnBxhkGSUI2bWl3xzsACfUE55
x5BQBf6ZTxtWksbjrmxxTNk=
=P9Ex
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [PATCH] removing e2fsprogs compiling warnings

[Theodore Tso]

On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 02:07:30PM +0800, Coly Li wrote:
> 
> Do you mean  "Signed-off-by Coly Li <coyli@suse.de>" ?
> I just though this is used for others to sign my patch :-) 

No, it's really bad to add a Signed-off-by for anyone other than
yourself, since it has legal significance.  It's something that you
have to do for yourself.  :-)

Quoting from SUBMITTING-PATCHES:

The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for the
patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to
pass it on as a open-source patch.  The rules are pretty simple: if you
can certify the below:

        Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1

        By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:

        (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
            have the right to submit it under the open source license
            indicated in the file; or

        (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
            of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
            license and I have the right under that license to submit that
            work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
            by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
            permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
            in the file; or

        (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
            person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
            it.

	(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
	    are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
	    personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
	    maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
	    this project or the open source license(s) involved.

then you just add a line saying

	Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org>

In this case of your gcc -Wall cleanups, the changes involved were
small and probably fell below the threshold of something that could be
protected by copyright --- and I ended up choosing a different way of
cleaning up for one or two of the cleanups anyway.  But for anything
non-trivial, these days I am requested a Developers Certification of
Origin.

Regards,

						- Ted

Re: [PATCH] removing e2fsprogs compiling warnings

[Coly Li]

clear, this is a perfect explaining for Signed-off-by :-)

Thanks a lot.

Coly

Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 02:07:30PM +0800, Coly Li wrote:
>> Do you mean  "Signed-off-by Coly Li <coyli@suse.de>" ?
>> I just though this is used for others to sign my patch :-) 
> 
> No, it's really bad to add a Signed-off-by for anyone other than
> yourself, since it has legal significance.  It's something that you
> have to do for yourself.  :-)
> 
> Quoting from SUBMITTING-PATCHES:
> 
> The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for the
> patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to
> pass it on as a open-source patch.  The rules are pretty simple: if you
> can certify the below:
> 
>         Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1
> 
>         By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:
> 
>         (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
>             have the right to submit it under the open source license
>             indicated in the file; or
> 
>         (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
>             of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
>             license and I have the right under that license to submit that
>             work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
>             by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
>             permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
>             in the file; or
> 
>         (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
>             person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
>             it.
> 
> 	(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
> 	    are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
> 	    personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
> 	    maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
> 	    this project or the open source license(s) involved.
> 
> then you just add a line saying
> 
> 	Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org>
> 
> In this case of your gcc -Wall cleanups, the changes involved were
> small and probably fell below the threshold of something that could be
> protected by copyright --- and I ended up choosing a different way of
> cleaning up for one or two of the cleanups anyway.  But for anything
> non-trivial, these days I am requested a Developers Certification of
> Origin.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 						- Ted
>