From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Hurley Subject: Re: [PATCH] serial-uartlite: fix build warning Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 12:19:40 -0700 Message-ID: <56EC54CC.90101@hurleysoftware.com> References: <20160318184856.c289c591@kerio.vanmierlo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160318184856.c289c591@kerio.vanmierlo.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Maarten Brock , Geert Uytterhoeven , Sudip Mukherjee Cc: Peter Korsgaard , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jiri Slaby , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org On 03/18/2016 10:48 AM, Maarten Brock wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Geert Uytterhoeven [mailto:geert@linux-m68k.org] > To: Sudip Mukherjee [mailto:sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com] > Cc: Peter Korsgaard [mailto:jacmet@sunsite.dk], Greg Kroah-Hartman [m= ailto:gregkh@linuxfoundation.org], Jiri Slaby [mailto:jslaby@suse.com],= linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org], li= nux-serial@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-serial@vger.kernel.org] > Sent: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 13:48:06 +0100 > Subject: Re: [PATCH] serial-uartlite: fix build warning >=20 >=20 >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Sudip Mukherjee >> wrote: >>> We were getting build warnings about: >>> drivers/tty/serial/uartlite.c: In function =E2=80=98ulite_request_p= ort=E2=80=99: >>> drivers/tty/serial/uartlite.c:348:21: warning: assignment discards >>> 'const' qualifier from pointer target type >>> port->private_data =3D &uartlite_be; >>> ^ >>> drivers/tty/serial/uartlite.c:354:22: warning: assignment discards >>> 'const' qualifier from pointer target type >>> port->private_data =3D &uartlite_le; >>> ^ >>> >>> Fixes: 2905697a82ea ("serial-uartlite: Constify uartlite_be/uartlit= e_le") >>> Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee >> >> Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven >> >> Gr{oetje,eeting}s, >> >> Geert >=20 > Reverting is not the same as fixing. I agree; better to revert commit 2905697a82ea and let Maarten re-submit a patch that doesn't generate build warnings. > Rant: > It is a stupid warning IMHO, but being a compiler writer myself (SDCC= ) I > understand how it can arise. If you assign some const pointer to a vo= id > pointer without an explicit cast gcc does not complain about the comp= lete > loss of type, but it does warn about losing constness. In general I'd= say: > make up your mind; either warn about both or don't warn about either. memcpy Regards, Peter Hurley =20