* [PATCH] Quieten arch/powerpc in a allmodconfig build.
@ 2009-04-08 4:36 Tony Breeds
2009-04-08 5:08 ` Michael Ellerman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Tony Breeds @ 2009-04-08 4:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-dev
This patch silences all the warnings generated in arch/powerpc for
allmodconfig build.
It does:
* Where appropriate use the uninitialized_var() macro to help GCC
understand we know what's going on.
* Explicitly casts PHYSICAL_START in one printk()
* Initialise a few variables, as it's "neater" than using uninitialized_var()
Signed-off-by: Tony Breeds <tony@bakeyournoodle.com>
---
Only compile tested.
arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c | 4 ++--
arch/powerpc/kernel/pci_dn.c | 2 +-
arch/powerpc/kernel/setup_64.c | 4 ++--
arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/axon_msi.c | 2 +-
arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/beat_iommu.c | 2 +-
arch/powerpc/platforms/iseries/pci.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------
arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/low_i2c.c | 5 ++---
arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/msi.c | 2 +-
8 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c
index bb37b1d..fd6aef9 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c
@@ -510,7 +510,7 @@ static struct cache *index_kobj_to_cache(struct kobject *k)
static ssize_t size_show(struct kobject *k, struct kobj_attribute *attr, char *buf)
{
- unsigned int size_kb;
+ unsigned int uninitialized_var(size_kb);
struct cache *cache;
cache = index_kobj_to_cache(k);
@@ -559,7 +559,7 @@ static struct kobj_attribute cache_nr_sets_attr =
static ssize_t associativity_show(struct kobject *k, struct kobj_attribute *attr, char *buf)
{
- unsigned int associativity;
+ unsigned int uninitialized_var(associativity);
struct cache *cache;
cache = index_kobj_to_cache(k);
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/pci_dn.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/pci_dn.c
index 1c67de5..b9d66ed 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/pci_dn.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/pci_dn.c
@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ void *traverse_pci_devices(struct device_node *start, traverse_func pre,
void *data)
{
struct device_node *dn, *nextdn;
- void *ret;
+ void *uninitialized_var(ret);
/* We started with a phb, iterate all childs */
for (dn = start->child; dn; dn = nextdn) {
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup_64.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup_64.c
index c410c60..38968f1 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup_64.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup_64.c
@@ -421,8 +421,8 @@ void __init setup_system(void)
printk("htab_address = 0x%p\n", htab_address);
printk("htab_hash_mask = 0x%lx\n", htab_hash_mask);
if (PHYSICAL_START > 0)
- printk("physical_start = 0x%lx\n",
- PHYSICAL_START);
+ printk("physical_start = 0x%llx\n",
+ (unsigned long long)PHYSICAL_START);
printk("-----------------------------------------------------\n");
DBG(" <- setup_system()\n");
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/axon_msi.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/axon_msi.c
index 0ce45c2..dae4c7c 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/axon_msi.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/axon_msi.c
@@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ static struct axon_msic *find_msi_translator(struct pci_dev *dev)
{
struct irq_host *irq_host;
struct device_node *dn, *tmp;
- const phandle *ph;
+ const phandle *uninitialized_var(ph);
struct axon_msic *msic = NULL;
dn = of_node_get(pci_device_to_OF_node(dev));
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/beat_iommu.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/beat_iommu.c
index 93b0efd..8230cd8 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/beat_iommu.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/beat_iommu.c
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ static unsigned long celleb_dma_direct_offset;
static void __init celleb_init_direct_mapping(void)
{
u64 lpar_addr, io_addr;
- u64 io_space_id, ioid, dma_base, dma_size, io_page_size;
+ u64 io_space_id=0, ioid=0, dma_base=0, dma_size=0, io_page_size=0;
if (!find_dma_window(&io_space_id, &ioid, &dma_base, &dma_size,
&io_page_size)) {
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/iseries/pci.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/iseries/pci.c
index 02a634f..05f047d 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/iseries/pci.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/iseries/pci.c
@@ -616,8 +616,8 @@ static inline struct device_node *xlate_iomm_address(
*/
static u8 iseries_readb(const volatile void __iomem *addr)
{
- u64 bar_offset;
- u64 dsa;
+ u64 uninitialized_var(bar_offset);
+ u64 uninitialized_var(dsa);
int retry = 0;
struct HvCallPci_LoadReturn ret;
struct device_node *dn =
@@ -634,8 +634,8 @@ static u8 iseries_readb(const volatile void __iomem *addr)
static u16 iseries_readw_be(const volatile void __iomem *addr)
{
- u64 bar_offset;
- u64 dsa;
+ u64 uninitialized_var(bar_offset);
+ u64 uninitialized_var(dsa);
int retry = 0;
struct HvCallPci_LoadReturn ret;
struct device_node *dn =
@@ -653,8 +653,8 @@ static u16 iseries_readw_be(const volatile void __iomem *addr)
static u32 iseries_readl_be(const volatile void __iomem *addr)
{
- u64 bar_offset;
- u64 dsa;
+ u64 uninitialized_var(bar_offset);
+ u64 uninitialized_var(dsa);
int retry = 0;
struct HvCallPci_LoadReturn ret;
struct device_node *dn =
@@ -676,8 +676,8 @@ static u32 iseries_readl_be(const volatile void __iomem *addr)
*/
static void iseries_writeb(u8 data, volatile void __iomem *addr)
{
- u64 bar_offset;
- u64 dsa;
+ u64 uninitialized_var(bar_offset);
+ u64 uninitialized_var(dsa);
int retry = 0;
u64 rc;
struct device_node *dn =
@@ -692,8 +692,8 @@ static void iseries_writeb(u8 data, volatile void __iomem *addr)
static void iseries_writew_be(u16 data, volatile void __iomem *addr)
{
- u64 bar_offset;
- u64 dsa;
+ u64 uninitialized_var(bar_offset);
+ u64 uninitialized_var(dsa);
int retry = 0;
u64 rc;
struct device_node *dn =
@@ -708,8 +708,8 @@ static void iseries_writew_be(u16 data, volatile void __iomem *addr)
static void iseries_writel_be(u32 data, volatile void __iomem *addr)
{
- u64 bar_offset;
- u64 dsa;
+ u64 uninitialized_var(bar_offset);
+ u64 uninitialized_var(dsa);
int retry = 0;
u64 rc;
struct device_node *dn =
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/low_i2c.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/low_i2c.c
index 21226b7..5989427 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/low_i2c.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/low_i2c.c
@@ -1090,7 +1090,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pmac_low_i2c_unlock);
int pmac_i2c_open(struct pmac_i2c_bus *bus, int polled)
{
- int rc;
+ int rc = 0;
mutex_lock(&bus->mutex);
bus->polled = polled || pmac_i2c_force_poll;
@@ -1099,9 +1099,8 @@ int pmac_i2c_open(struct pmac_i2c_bus *bus, int polled)
if (bus->open && (rc = bus->open(bus)) != 0) {
bus->opened = 0;
mutex_unlock(&bus->mutex);
- return rc;
}
- return 0;
+ return rc;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pmac_i2c_open);
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/msi.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/msi.c
index bf2e1ac..d92f593 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/msi.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/msi.c
@@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static int msi_quota_for_device(struct pci_dev *dev, int request)
{
struct device_node *pe_dn;
struct msi_counts counts;
- int total;
+ int uninitialized_var(total);
pr_debug("rtas_msi: calc quota for %s, request %d\n", pci_name(dev),
request);
--
1.6.0.6
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Quieten arch/powerpc in a allmodconfig build.
2009-04-08 4:36 [PATCH] Quieten arch/powerpc in a allmodconfig build Tony Breeds
@ 2009-04-08 5:08 ` Michael Ellerman
2009-04-08 5:51 ` Tony Breeds
0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Michael Ellerman @ 2009-04-08 5:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tony Breeds; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8454 bytes --]
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 14:36 +1000, Tony Breeds wrote:
> This patch silences all the warnings generated in arch/powerpc for
> allmodconfig build.
>
> It does:
> * Where appropriate use the uninitialized_var() macro to help GCC
> understand we know what's going on.
> * Explicitly casts PHYSICAL_START in one printk()
> * Initialise a few variables, as it's "neater" than using uninitialized_var()
>
> Signed-off-by: Tony Breeds <tony@bakeyournoodle.com>
> ---
> Only compile tested.
>
> arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c | 4 ++--
> arch/powerpc/kernel/pci_dn.c | 2 +-
> arch/powerpc/kernel/setup_64.c | 4 ++--
> arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/axon_msi.c | 2 +-
> arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/beat_iommu.c | 2 +-
> arch/powerpc/platforms/iseries/pci.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------
> arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/low_i2c.c | 5 ++---
> arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/msi.c | 2 +-
> 8 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c
> index bb37b1d..fd6aef9 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c
> @@ -510,7 +510,7 @@ static struct cache *index_kobj_to_cache(struct kobject *k)
>
> static ssize_t size_show(struct kobject *k, struct kobj_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> {
> - unsigned int size_kb;
> + unsigned int uninitialized_var(size_kb);
> struct cache *cache;
>
> cache = index_kobj_to_cache(k);
> @@ -559,7 +559,7 @@ static struct kobj_attribute cache_nr_sets_attr =
>
> static ssize_t associativity_show(struct kobject *k, struct kobj_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> {
> - unsigned int associativity;
> + unsigned int uninitialized_var(associativity);
> struct cache *cache;
The getter routines in here could really multiplex their return values
with a negative error code, which I generally prefer, but this works I
guess.
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/pci_dn.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/pci_dn.c
> index 1c67de5..b9d66ed 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/pci_dn.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/pci_dn.c
> @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ void *traverse_pci_devices(struct device_node *start, traverse_func pre,
> void *data)
> {
> struct device_node *dn, *nextdn;
> - void *ret;
> + void *uninitialized_var(ret);
The code causing this one is a little ugly anyway, I think we should
change it to be:
- if (pre && ((ret = pre(dn, data)) != NULL))
- return ret;
+ if (pre) {
+ ret = pre(dn, data);
+ if (ret != NULL)
+ return ret;
+ }
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/axon_msi.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/axon_msi.c
> index 0ce45c2..dae4c7c 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/axon_msi.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/axon_msi.c
> @@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ static struct axon_msic *find_msi_translator(struct pci_dev *dev)
> {
> struct irq_host *irq_host;
> struct device_node *dn, *tmp;
> - const phandle *ph;
> + const phandle *uninitialized_var(ph);
> struct axon_msic *msic = NULL;
Freakin gcc. This is just:
if (!dn)
return;
for (; dn; ..)
ph = ..
if (!ph)
And it can't work out that it's never used uninitialised?
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/beat_iommu.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/beat_iommu.c
> index 93b0efd..8230cd8 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/beat_iommu.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/beat_iommu.c
> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ static unsigned long celleb_dma_direct_offset;
> static void __init celleb_init_direct_mapping(void)
> {
> u64 lpar_addr, io_addr;
> - u64 io_space_id, ioid, dma_base, dma_size, io_page_size;
> + u64 io_space_id=0, ioid=0, dma_base=0, dma_size=0, io_page_size=0;
Do you need a new spacebar? :D
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/iseries/pci.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/iseries/pci.c
> index 02a634f..05f047d 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/iseries/pci.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/iseries/pci.c
> @@ -616,8 +616,8 @@ static inline struct device_node *xlate_iomm_address(
> */
> static u8 iseries_readb(const volatile void __iomem *addr)
> {
> - u64 bar_offset;
> - u64 dsa;
> + u64 uninitialized_var(bar_offset);
> + u64 uninitialized_var(dsa);
> int retry = 0;
> struct HvCallPci_LoadReturn ret;
> struct device_node *dn =
> @@ -634,8 +634,8 @@ static u8 iseries_readb(const volatile void __iomem *addr)
>
> static u16 iseries_readw_be(const volatile void __iomem *addr)
> {
> - u64 bar_offset;
> - u64 dsa;
> + u64 uninitialized_var(bar_offset);
> + u64 uninitialized_var(dsa);
> int retry = 0;
> struct HvCallPci_LoadReturn ret;
> struct device_node *dn =
> @@ -653,8 +653,8 @@ static u16 iseries_readw_be(const volatile void __iomem *addr)
>
> static u32 iseries_readl_be(const volatile void __iomem *addr)
> {
> - u64 bar_offset;
> - u64 dsa;
> + u64 uninitialized_var(bar_offset);
> + u64 uninitialized_var(dsa);
> int retry = 0;
> struct HvCallPci_LoadReturn ret;
> struct device_node *dn =
> @@ -676,8 +676,8 @@ static u32 iseries_readl_be(const volatile void __iomem *addr)
> */
> static void iseries_writeb(u8 data, volatile void __iomem *addr)
> {
> - u64 bar_offset;
> - u64 dsa;
> + u64 uninitialized_var(bar_offset);
> + u64 uninitialized_var(dsa);
> int retry = 0;
> u64 rc;
> struct device_node *dn =
> @@ -692,8 +692,8 @@ static void iseries_writeb(u8 data, volatile void __iomem *addr)
>
> static void iseries_writew_be(u16 data, volatile void __iomem *addr)
> {
> - u64 bar_offset;
> - u64 dsa;
> + u64 uninitialized_var(bar_offset);
> + u64 uninitialized_var(dsa);
> int retry = 0;
> u64 rc;
> struct device_node *dn =
> @@ -708,8 +708,8 @@ static void iseries_writew_be(u16 data, volatile void __iomem *addr)
>
> static void iseries_writel_be(u32 data, volatile void __iomem *addr)
> {
> - u64 bar_offset;
> - u64 dsa;
> + u64 uninitialized_var(bar_offset);
> + u64 uninitialized_var(dsa);
> int retry = 0;
> u64 rc;
> struct device_node *dn =
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/low_i2c.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/low_i2c.c
> index 21226b7..5989427 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/low_i2c.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/low_i2c.c
> @@ -1090,7 +1090,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pmac_low_i2c_unlock);
>
> int pmac_i2c_open(struct pmac_i2c_bus *bus, int polled)
> {
> - int rc;
> + int rc = 0;
>
> mutex_lock(&bus->mutex);
> bus->polled = polled || pmac_i2c_force_poll;
> @@ -1099,9 +1099,8 @@ int pmac_i2c_open(struct pmac_i2c_bus *bus, int polled)
> if (bus->open && (rc = bus->open(bus)) != 0) {
> bus->opened = 0;
> mutex_unlock(&bus->mutex);
> - return rc;
> }
> - return 0;
> + return rc;
This one is a bug surely?
1092 {
1093 int rc;
1094
1095 mutex_lock(&bus->mutex);
1096 bus->polled = polled || pmac_i2c_force_poll;
1097 bus->opened = 1;
1098 bus->mode = pmac_i2c_mode_std;
1099 if (bus->open && (rc = bus->open(bus)) != 0) {
1100 bus->opened = 0;
1101 mutex_unlock(&bus->mutex);
1102 return rc;
1103 }
1104 return 0;
1105 }
I can't reproduce it though with a simple test case :?
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/msi.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/msi.c
> index bf2e1ac..d92f593 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/msi.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/msi.c
> @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static int msi_quota_for_device(struct pci_dev *dev, int request)
> {
> struct device_node *pe_dn;
> struct msi_counts counts;
> - int total;
> + int uninitialized_var(total);
>
> pr_debug("rtas_msi: calc quota for %s, request %d\n", pci_name(dev),
> request);
Gah, gcc sucks. It should just not warn in these cases where it doesn't
know wth is going on.
cheers
--
Michael Ellerman
OzLabs, IBM Australia Development Lab
wwweb: http://michael.ellerman.id.au
phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183)
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors,
we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Quieten arch/powerpc in a allmodconfig build.
2009-04-08 5:08 ` Michael Ellerman
@ 2009-04-08 5:51 ` Tony Breeds
2009-04-08 6:13 ` Tony Breeds
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Tony Breeds @ 2009-04-08 5:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Ellerman; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 03:08:55PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> The getter routines in here could really multiplex their return values
> with a negative error code, which I generally prefer, but this works I
> guess.
I was hoping someone would notice and suggest it. tag you're it!
> Do you need a new spacebar? :D
nowhydoyouask?
> This one is a bug surely?
Hmm actually I think you're right. I dont want to push my luck with the gcc
hackers though
> Gah, gcc sucks. It should just not warn in these cases where it doesn't
> know wth is going on.
I don't think you'll get any arguments. it only there was a -Wnowarnunused!
Yours Tony
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Quieten arch/powerpc in a allmodconfig build.
2009-04-08 5:51 ` Tony Breeds
@ 2009-04-08 6:13 ` Tony Breeds
2009-04-08 6:23 ` Michael Ellerman
2009-04-08 6:48 ` Michael Ellerman
2009-04-09 22:46 ` Segher Boessenkool
2 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Tony Breeds @ 2009-04-08 6:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Ellerman, linuxppc-dev, Segher Boessenkool
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 03:51:26PM +1000, Tony Breeds wrote:
> Hmm actually I think you're right. I dont want to push my luck with the gcc
> hackers though
Replying to myself.
Yes this is a gcc bug but one introduced by CONFIG_TRACE_ALL_BRANCHES (or
whatever that's called).
Yours Tony
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Quieten arch/powerpc in a allmodconfig build.
2009-04-08 6:13 ` Tony Breeds
@ 2009-04-08 6:23 ` Michael Ellerman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Michael Ellerman @ 2009-04-08 6:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tony Breeds; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 847 bytes --]
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 16:13 +1000, Tony Breeds wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 03:51:26PM +1000, Tony Breeds wrote:
>
> > Hmm actually I think you're right. I dont want to push my luck with the gcc
> > hackers though
>
> Replying to myself.
>
> Yes this is a gcc bug but one introduced by CONFIG_TRACE_ALL_BRANCHES (or
> whatever that's called).
CONFIG_MAKE_MY_KERNEL_SUCK I think it is.
In that case I don't blame gcc.
If people want to use that option I think they can just deal with the
warnings, we can make -Werror depend on !CONFIG_PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES.
cheers
--
Michael Ellerman
OzLabs, IBM Australia Development Lab
wwweb: http://michael.ellerman.id.au
phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183)
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors,
we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Quieten arch/powerpc in a allmodconfig build.
2009-04-08 5:51 ` Tony Breeds
2009-04-08 6:13 ` Tony Breeds
@ 2009-04-08 6:48 ` Michael Ellerman
2009-04-08 7:42 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2009-04-08 18:47 ` Nathan Lynch
2009-04-09 22:46 ` Segher Boessenkool
2 siblings, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Michael Ellerman @ 2009-04-08 6:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tony Breeds; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, Nathan Lynch
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2341 bytes --]
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 15:51 +1000, Tony Breeds wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 03:08:55PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
> > The getter routines in here could really multiplex their return values
> > with a negative error code, which I generally prefer, but this works I
> > guess.
>
> I was hoping someone would notice and suggest it. tag you're it!
I meant we /could/ change them, but we could also leave them, it's a bit
of a coin-flip which is better. Nathan might have an opinion?
Something like this:
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c
index bb37b1d..9f3a155 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c
@@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ static void cache_cpu_set(struct cache *cache, int cpu)
}
}
-static int cache_size(const struct cache *cache, unsigned int *ret)
+static int cache_size(const struct cache *cache)
{
const char *propname;
const u32 *cache_size;
@@ -202,19 +202,18 @@ static int cache_size(const struct cache *cache, unsigned
if (!cache_size)
return -ENODEV;
- *ret = *cache_size;
- return 0;
+ return cache_size;
}
-static int cache_size_kb(const struct cache *cache, unsigned int *ret)
+static int cache_size_kb(const struct cache *cache)
{
unsigned int size;
- if (cache_size(cache, &size))
- return -ENODEV;
+ size = cache_size(cache);
+ if (size < 0)
+ return size;
- *ret = size / 1024;
- return 0;
+ return size / 1024;
}
/* not cache_line_size() because that's a macro in include/linux/cache.h */
@@ -515,8 +514,9 @@ static ssize_t size_show(struct kobject *k, struct kobj_attr
cache = index_kobj_to_cache(k);
- if (cache_size_kb(cache, &size_kb))
- return -ENODEV;
+ size_kb = cache_size_kb(cache);
+ if (size_kb < 0)
+ return size_kb;
return sprintf(buf, "%uK\n", size_kb);
}
cheers
--
Michael Ellerman
OzLabs, IBM Australia Development Lab
wwweb: http://michael.ellerman.id.au
phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183)
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors,
we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Quieten arch/powerpc in a allmodconfig build.
2009-04-08 6:48 ` Michael Ellerman
@ 2009-04-08 7:42 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2009-04-08 18:47 ` Nathan Lynch
1 sibling, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2009-04-08 7:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Ellerman; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, Nathan Lynch
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 15:51 +1000, Tony Breeds wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 03:08:55PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >
> > > The getter routines in here could really multiplex their return values
> > > with a negative error code, which I generally prefer, but this works I
> > > guess.
> >
> > I was hoping someone would notice and suggest it. tag you're it!
>
> I meant we /could/ change them, but we could also leave them, it's a bit
> of a coin-flip which is better. Nathan might have an opinion?
>
> Something like this:
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c
> index bb37b1d..9f3a155 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c
> -static int cache_size_kb(const struct cache *cache, unsigned int *ret)
> +static int cache_size_kb(const struct cache *cache)
> {
> unsigned int size;
^^^^^^^^^^^^
`int size', or Roel will come to get you ;-)
>
> - if (cache_size(cache, &size))
> - return -ENODEV;
> + size = cache_size(cache);
> + if (size < 0)
^^^^^^^^
> + return size;
I can't check the others, due to lacking context...
With kind regards,
Geert Uytterhoeven
Software Architect
Sony Techsoft Centre Europe
The Corporate Village · Da Vincilaan 7-D1 · B-1935 Zaventem · Belgium
Phone: +32 (0)2 700 8453
Fax: +32 (0)2 700 8622
E-mail: Geert.Uytterhoeven@sonycom.com
Internet: http://www.sony-europe.com/
A division of Sony Europe (Belgium) N.V.
VAT BE 0413.825.160 · RPR Brussels
Fortis · BIC GEBABEBB · IBAN BE41293037680010
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Quieten arch/powerpc in a allmodconfig build.
2009-04-08 6:48 ` Michael Ellerman
2009-04-08 7:42 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
@ 2009-04-08 18:47 ` Nathan Lynch
2009-04-09 0:01 ` Tony Breeds
1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Nathan Lynch @ 2009-04-08 18:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: michael; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
Michael Ellerman <michael@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 15:51 +1000, Tony Breeds wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 03:08:55PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >
> > > The getter routines in here could really multiplex their return values
> > > with a negative error code, which I generally prefer, but this works I
> > > guess.
> >
> > I was hoping someone would notice and suggest it. tag you're it!
>
> I meant we /could/ change them, but we could also leave them, it's a bit
> of a coin-flip which is better. Nathan might have an opinion?
I think I had some reason for doing it this way, but I'm drawing a
blank right now.
In the meantime, can someone post the warnings that gcc emits for
cacheinfo.c, as well as the gcc version? I can't reproduce them with
4.3.2 on Fedora.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Quieten arch/powerpc in a allmodconfig build.
2009-04-08 18:47 ` Nathan Lynch
@ 2009-04-09 0:01 ` Tony Breeds
2009-04-10 4:21 ` Nathan Lynch
0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Tony Breeds @ 2009-04-09 0:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nathan Lynch; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 01:47:36PM -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> I think I had some reason for doing it this way, but I'm drawing a
> blank right now.
>
> In the meantime, can someone post the warnings that gcc emits for
> cacheinfo.c, as well as the gcc version? I can't reproduce them with
> 4.3.2 on Fedora.
---
[tony@thor ~]$ egrep cacheinfo tmp/build.log
/scratch/tony/working/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c: In function 'associativity_show':
/scratch/tony/working/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c:562: warning: 'associativity' may be used uninitialized in this function
/scratch/tony/working/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c: In function 'size_show':
/scratch/tony/working/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c:513: warning: 'size_kb' may be used uninitialized in this function
tony@Sprygo:~/scratch$ /opt/crosstool/gcc-4.4.0-20090216-nolibc/powerpc-linux/bin/powerpc-linux-gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: powerpc-linux
Configured with: /home/tony/buildall/src/gcc/configure --target=powerpc-linux --enable-targets=all --prefix=/opt/crosstool/gcc-4.4.0-20090216-nolibc/powerpc-linux --program-prefix=powerpc-linux- --disable-bootstrap --with-mpfr=/usr --enable-languages=c --without-headers --enable-sjlj-exceptions --with-system-libunwind --disable-nls --disable-threads --disable-shared --disable-libmudflap --disable-libssp --disable-libgomp --disable-decimal-float --enable-checking=release
Thread model: single
gcc version 4.4.0 20090216 (experimental) (GCC)
tony@Sprygo:~/scratch$
---
That's the compiler in rawhide
Yours Tony
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Quieten arch/powerpc in a allmodconfig build.
2009-04-09 22:46 ` Segher Boessenkool
@ 2009-04-09 22:45 ` Tony Breeds
2009-04-09 23:11 ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-04-09 23:18 ` Segher Boessenkool
0 siblings, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Tony Breeds @ 2009-04-09 22:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Segher Boessenkool; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 12:46:06AM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> -Wno-unused or -Wno-unused-pparameter and/or -Wno-unused-variable. But I
> thought this was about uninitialised var warnings? -Wno-uninitialized
> for that one.
> If you are asking for a GCC option that will warn for all suspect cases
> _except_ for the ones where it is obvious to you there is no problem:
> you could try -Wesp.
Ooops I was asking for -Wno-uninitialized. I'll try a build with:
-Wno-uninitialized -Wesp
and see how that goes.
Thanks.
Yours Tony
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Quieten arch/powerpc in a allmodconfig build.
2009-04-08 5:51 ` Tony Breeds
2009-04-08 6:13 ` Tony Breeds
2009-04-08 6:48 ` Michael Ellerman
@ 2009-04-09 22:46 ` Segher Boessenkool
2009-04-09 22:45 ` Tony Breeds
2 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Segher Boessenkool @ 2009-04-09 22:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tony Breeds; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
>> Gah, gcc sucks. It should just not warn in these cases where it
>> doesn't
>> know wth is going on.
>
> I don't think you'll get any arguments. it only there was a -
> Wnowarnunused!
-Wno-unused or -Wno-unused-pparameter and/or -Wno-unused-variable.
But I
thought this was about uninitialised var warnings? -Wno-uninitialized
for that one.
If you are asking for a GCC option that will warn for all suspect cases
_except_ for the ones where it is obvious to you there is no problem:
you could try -Wesp.
Segher
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Quieten arch/powerpc in a allmodconfig build.
2009-04-09 22:45 ` Tony Breeds
@ 2009-04-09 23:11 ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-04-09 23:23 ` Segher Boessenkool
2009-04-09 23:18 ` Segher Boessenkool
1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2009-04-09 23:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tony Breeds; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 709 bytes --]
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 08:45:53 +1000 Tony Breeds <tony@bakeyournoodle.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 12:46:06AM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
> > -Wno-unused or -Wno-unused-pparameter and/or -Wno-unused-variable. But I
> > thought this was about uninitialised var warnings? -Wno-uninitialized
> > for that one.
>
> Ooops I was asking for -Wno-uninitialized. I'll try a build with:
> -Wno-uninitialized -Wesp
> and see how that goes.
Unfortunately -Wno-uninitialized also suppresses the warnings that point
to real bugs. (but, I guess, the -Wesp might help there :-))
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Quieten arch/powerpc in a allmodconfig build.
2009-04-09 22:45 ` Tony Breeds
2009-04-09 23:11 ` Stephen Rothwell
@ 2009-04-09 23:18 ` Segher Boessenkool
1 sibling, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Segher Boessenkool @ 2009-04-09 23:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tony Breeds; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
>> -Wno-unused or -Wno-unused-pparameter and/or -Wno-unused-
>> variable. But I
>> thought this was about uninitialised var warnings? -Wno-
>> uninitialized
>> for that one.
>
>> If you are asking for a GCC option that will warn for all suspect
>> cases
>> _except_ for the ones where it is obvious to you there is no problem:
>> you could try -Wesp.
>
> Ooops I was asking for -Wno-uninitialized. I'll try a build with:
> -Wno-uninitialized -Wesp
> and see how that goes.
-Wesp was a joke: I was trying to say that the compiler cannot read
minds.
It doesn't know what potentially unused variables are obviously (to you)
actually used.
Segher
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Quieten arch/powerpc in a allmodconfig build.
2009-04-09 23:11 ` Stephen Rothwell
@ 2009-04-09 23:23 ` Segher Boessenkool
2009-04-10 18:03 ` Scott Wood
0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Segher Boessenkool @ 2009-04-09 23:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
> Unfortunately -Wno-uninitialized also suppresses the warnings that
> point
> to real bugs.
It's a double-edged sword, yes. Warnings are always like that:
if the compiler could know that something _is_ wrong for certain,
it wouldn't need a warning (it would use an error, instead -- and
it does do this in certain cases); if it would know something is
not really wrong, it would just shut up.
> (but, I guess, the -Wesp might help there :-))
Yeah, it's the holy grail of compiler architecture. "Do what I want,
not what I say" :-)
Segher
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Quieten arch/powerpc in a allmodconfig build.
2009-04-09 0:01 ` Tony Breeds
@ 2009-04-10 4:21 ` Nathan Lynch
2009-04-10 17:19 ` Segher Boessenkool
0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Nathan Lynch @ 2009-04-10 4:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tony Breeds; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
Tony Breeds <tony@bakeyournoodle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 01:47:36PM -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
>
> > I think I had some reason for doing it this way, but I'm drawing a
> > blank right now.
> >
> > In the meantime, can someone post the warnings that gcc emits for
> > cacheinfo.c, as well as the gcc version? I can't reproduce them with
> > 4.3.2 on Fedora.
>
> ---
> [tony@thor ~]$ egrep cacheinfo tmp/build.log
> /scratch/tony/working/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c: In function 'associativity_show':
> /scratch/tony/working/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c:562: warning: 'associativity' may be used uninitialized in this function
> /scratch/tony/working/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c: In function 'size_show':
> /scratch/tony/working/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c:513: warning: 'size_kb' may be used uninitialized in this function
Thanks.
So I think I've convinced myself that the warnings are incorrect and
that uninitialized use is not possible.
But I find it odd that gcc gives warnings for these sites but not others
in the file that use the same idiom (e.g. line_size_show,
nr_sets_show). I'd guess that inlining is implicated somehow. Would I
be justified in worrying that this version of gcc is generating
incorrect code?
If not, then I'm fine with the uninitialized_var() changes, but do
please include the warnings and the compiler version in the changelog.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Quieten arch/powerpc in a allmodconfig build.
2009-04-10 4:21 ` Nathan Lynch
@ 2009-04-10 17:19 ` Segher Boessenkool
0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Segher Boessenkool @ 2009-04-10 17:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nathan Lynch; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
>> /scratch/tony/working/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c: In function
>> 'associativity_show':
>> /scratch/tony/working/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c:562:
>> warning: 'associativity' may be used uninitialized in this function
>> /scratch/tony/working/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c: In function
>> 'size_show':
>> /scratch/tony/working/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c:513:
>> warning: 'size_kb' may be used uninitialized in this function
>
> Thanks.
>
> So I think I've convinced myself that the warnings are incorrect and
> that uninitialized use is not possible.
Strictly speaking the warnings aren't incorrect: the variables
"may be used uninitialized", they just never are. I agree this
isn't very helpful.
> But I find it odd that gcc gives warnings for these sites but not
> others
> in the file that use the same idiom (e.g. line_size_show,
> nr_sets_show).
Yeah.
> I'd guess that inlining is implicated somehow. Would I
> be justified in worrying that this version of gcc is generating
> incorrect code?
Not really. Sub-optimal code perhaps, but not incorrect.
> If not, then I'm fine with the uninitialized_var() changes, but do
> please include the warnings and the compiler version in the changelog.
If this happens with a non-ancient GCC version, can we have a bugreport
please?
Segher
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Quieten arch/powerpc in a allmodconfig build.
2009-04-09 23:23 ` Segher Boessenkool
@ 2009-04-10 18:03 ` Scott Wood
2009-04-10 18:35 ` Andreas Schwab
2009-04-10 20:45 ` Segher Boessenkool
0 siblings, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Scott Wood @ 2009-04-10 18:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Segher Boessenkool; +Cc: Stephen Rothwell, linuxppc-dev
Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> Unfortunately -Wno-uninitialized also suppresses the warnings that point
>> to real bugs.
>
> It's a double-edged sword, yes. Warnings are always like that:
> if the compiler could know that something _is_ wrong for certain,
> it wouldn't need a warning (it would use an error, instead -- and
> it does do this in certain cases); if it would know something is
> not really wrong, it would just shut up.
The problem is that GCC does not give an error (only a warning) even for
things like this where it should be trivial to detect that the usage
*is* uninitialized, not just might be:
int foo(void)
{
int a;
return a;
}
And further, there is no separation of warning classes into
might-be-uninitialized and is-uninitialized-compiler-can-tell-for-sure.
In other words, there should be a way to tell the compiler to err on the
side of not complaining if it's unsure, but still report the obvious
ones (or make the latter an error but the former a warning). That's not
ESP or DWIM.
-Scott
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Quieten arch/powerpc in a allmodconfig build.
2009-04-10 18:03 ` Scott Wood
@ 2009-04-10 18:35 ` Andreas Schwab
2009-04-10 18:43 ` Scott Wood
2009-04-10 20:45 ` Segher Boessenkool
1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Schwab @ 2009-04-10 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Scott Wood; +Cc: Stephen Rothwell, linuxppc-dev
Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> writes:
> The problem is that GCC does not give an error (only a warning) even for
> things like this where it should be trivial to detect that the usage *is*
> uninitialized, not just might be:
>
> int foo(void)
> {
> int a;
>
> return a;
> }
The compiler must not reject this code, because the undefined behavior
only occurs if executed. There is no constraint violated.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Quieten arch/powerpc in a allmodconfig build.
2009-04-10 18:35 ` Andreas Schwab
@ 2009-04-10 18:43 ` Scott Wood
2009-04-10 20:28 ` Segher Boessenkool
0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Scott Wood @ 2009-04-10 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andreas Schwab; +Cc: Stephen Rothwell, linuxppc-dev
Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> writes:
>
>> The problem is that GCC does not give an error (only a warning) even for
>> things like this where it should be trivial to detect that the usage *is*
>> uninitialized, not just might be:
>>
>> int foo(void)
>> {
>> int a;
>>
>> return a;
>> }
>
> The compiler must not reject this code, because the undefined behavior
> only occurs if executed. There is no constraint violated.
Fine (though GCC could have something similar to -Werror but more
limited in scope to the really serious stuff that *should* be illegal
even if it isn't), but it should at least be a separate warning class.
My point was to counter Segher's assertion that the compiler currently
gives an error on the obvious stuff.
-Scott
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Quieten arch/powerpc in a allmodconfig build.
2009-04-10 18:43 ` Scott Wood
@ 2009-04-10 20:28 ` Segher Boessenkool
0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Segher Boessenkool @ 2009-04-10 20:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Scott Wood; +Cc: Stephen Rothwell, Andreas Schwab, linuxppc-dev
>>> The problem is that GCC does not give an error (only a warning)
>>> even for
>>> things like this where it should be trivial to detect that the
>>> usage *is*
>>> uninitialized, not just might be:
>>>
>>> int foo(void)
>>> {
>>> int a;
>>>
>>> return a;
>>> }
>> The compiler must not reject this code, because the undefined
>> behavior
>> only occurs if executed. There is no constraint violated.
>
> Fine (though GCC could have something similar to -Werror but more
> limited in scope to the really serious stuff that *should* be
> illegal even if it isn't), but it should at least be a separate
> warning class.
>
> My point was to counter Segher's assertion that the compiler
> currently gives an error on the obvious stuff.
I never said that, or didn't intend to anyway; what I was trying to say
is that the compiler makes a difference between cases where it knows
something is uninitialized vs. cases where it cannot prove either way:
$ cat mm.c
int bork(void)
{
int a;
return a;
}
int main(void)
{
return bork();
}
$ powerpc-linux-gcc -Wall -W -Os -c mm.c
mm.c: In function 'bork':
mm.c:5: warning: 'a' is used uninitialized in this function
Note: _is_ used uninitialized, not "may be" like in cases where the
compiler
isn't sure.
I don't know why this isn't an error; perhaps GCC does not assume main
() to
always be executed. I don't think it could prove much anything to be
executed in non-toy examples, anyway.
Segher
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Quieten arch/powerpc in a allmodconfig build.
2009-04-10 18:03 ` Scott Wood
2009-04-10 18:35 ` Andreas Schwab
@ 2009-04-10 20:45 ` Segher Boessenkool
2009-04-10 21:51 ` Scott Wood
1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Segher Boessenkool @ 2009-04-10 20:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Scott Wood; +Cc: Stephen Rothwell, linuxppc-dev
> And further, there is no separation of warning classes into might-
> be-uninitialized and is-uninitialized-compiler-can-tell-for-sure.
Indeed. Please file a bug report.
Segher
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Quieten arch/powerpc in a allmodconfig build.
2009-04-10 20:45 ` Segher Boessenkool
@ 2009-04-10 21:51 ` Scott Wood
0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: Scott Wood @ 2009-04-10 21:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Segher Boessenkool; +Cc: Stephen Rothwell, linuxppc-dev
Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> And further, there is no separation of warning classes into
>> might-be-uninitialized and is-uninitialized-compiler-can-tell-for-sure.
>
> Indeed. Please file a bug report.
Done: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39731
-Scott
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-04-10 21:52 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-04-08 4:36 [PATCH] Quieten arch/powerpc in a allmodconfig build Tony Breeds
2009-04-08 5:08 ` Michael Ellerman
2009-04-08 5:51 ` Tony Breeds
2009-04-08 6:13 ` Tony Breeds
2009-04-08 6:23 ` Michael Ellerman
2009-04-08 6:48 ` Michael Ellerman
2009-04-08 7:42 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2009-04-08 18:47 ` Nathan Lynch
2009-04-09 0:01 ` Tony Breeds
2009-04-10 4:21 ` Nathan Lynch
2009-04-10 17:19 ` Segher Boessenkool
2009-04-09 22:46 ` Segher Boessenkool
2009-04-09 22:45 ` Tony Breeds
2009-04-09 23:11 ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-04-09 23:23 ` Segher Boessenkool
2009-04-10 18:03 ` Scott Wood
2009-04-10 18:35 ` Andreas Schwab
2009-04-10 18:43 ` Scott Wood
2009-04-10 20:28 ` Segher Boessenkool
2009-04-10 20:45 ` Segher Boessenkool
2009-04-10 21:51 ` Scott Wood
2009-04-09 23:18 ` Segher Boessenkool
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).