* [PATCH 2.6.25.9] Make sure that include/asm-powerpc/spinlock.h does not trigger compilation warnings
@ 2008-06-28 6:51 Bart Van Assche
2008-06-28 15:07 ` Kumar Gala
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Bart Van Assche @ 2008-06-28 6:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Mackerras, linuxppc-dev
When compiling kernel modules for ppc that include <linux/spinlock.h>, gcc
prints a warning message every time it encounters a function declaration where
the inline keyword appears after the return type. The patch below makes sure
that the order of the inline keyword and the return type is as gcc expects it.
Additionally, the __inline__ keyword is replaced by inline, as checkpatch
expects.
Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@gmail.com>
diff -uprN orig/linux-2.6.25.9/include/asm-powerpc/spinlock.h linux-2.6.25.9/include/asm-powerpc/spinlock.h
--- orig/linux-2.6.25.9/include/asm-powerpc/spinlock.h 2008-06-24 23:09:06.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.25.9/include/asm-powerpc/spinlock.h 2008-06-28 08:34:52.000000000 +0200
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@
* This returns the old value in the lock, so we succeeded
* in getting the lock if the return value is 0.
*/
-static __inline__ unsigned long __spin_trylock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
+static inline unsigned long __spin_trylock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
{
unsigned long tmp, token;
@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ static __inline__ unsigned long __spin_t
return tmp;
}
-static int __inline__ __raw_spin_trylock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
+static inline int __raw_spin_trylock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
{
CLEAR_IO_SYNC;
return __spin_trylock(lock) == 0;
@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ extern void __rw_yield(raw_rwlock_t *loc
#define SHARED_PROCESSOR 0
#endif
-static void __inline__ __raw_spin_lock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
+static inline void __raw_spin_lock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
{
CLEAR_IO_SYNC;
while (1) {
@@ -118,7 +118,8 @@ static void __inline__ __raw_spin_lock(r
}
}
-static void __inline__ __raw_spin_lock_flags(raw_spinlock_t *lock, unsigned long flags)
+static inline
+void __raw_spin_lock_flags(raw_spinlock_t *lock, unsigned long flags)
{
unsigned long flags_dis;
@@ -138,7 +139,7 @@ static void __inline__ __raw_spin_lock_f
}
}
-static __inline__ void __raw_spin_unlock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
+static inline void __raw_spin_unlock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
{
SYNC_IO;
__asm__ __volatile__("# __raw_spin_unlock\n\t"
@@ -179,7 +180,7 @@ extern void __raw_spin_unlock_wait(raw_s
* This returns the old value in the lock + 1,
* so we got a read lock if the return value is > 0.
*/
-static long __inline__ __read_trylock(raw_rwlock_t *rw)
+static inline long __read_trylock(raw_rwlock_t *rw)
{
long tmp;
@@ -203,7 +204,7 @@ static long __inline__ __read_trylock(ra
* This returns the old value in the lock,
* so we got the write lock if the return value is 0.
*/
-static __inline__ long __write_trylock(raw_rwlock_t *rw)
+static inline long __write_trylock(raw_rwlock_t *rw)
{
long tmp, token;
@@ -223,7 +224,7 @@ static __inline__ long __write_trylock(r
return tmp;
}
-static void __inline__ __raw_read_lock(raw_rwlock_t *rw)
+static inline void __raw_read_lock(raw_rwlock_t *rw)
{
while (1) {
if (likely(__read_trylock(rw) > 0))
@@ -237,7 +238,7 @@ static void __inline__ __raw_read_lock(r
}
}
-static void __inline__ __raw_write_lock(raw_rwlock_t *rw)
+static inline void __raw_write_lock(raw_rwlock_t *rw)
{
while (1) {
if (likely(__write_trylock(rw) == 0))
@@ -251,17 +252,17 @@ static void __inline__ __raw_write_lock(
}
}
-static int __inline__ __raw_read_trylock(raw_rwlock_t *rw)
+static inline int __raw_read_trylock(raw_rwlock_t *rw)
{
return __read_trylock(rw) > 0;
}
-static int __inline__ __raw_write_trylock(raw_rwlock_t *rw)
+static inline int __raw_write_trylock(raw_rwlock_t *rw)
{
return __write_trylock(rw) == 0;
}
-static void __inline__ __raw_read_unlock(raw_rwlock_t *rw)
+static inline void __raw_read_unlock(raw_rwlock_t *rw)
{
long tmp;
@@ -278,7 +279,7 @@ static void __inline__ __raw_read_unlock
: "cr0", "memory");
}
-static __inline__ void __raw_write_unlock(raw_rwlock_t *rw)
+static inline void __raw_write_unlock(raw_rwlock_t *rw)
{
__asm__ __volatile__("# write_unlock\n\t"
LWSYNC_ON_SMP: : :"memory");
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 2.6.25.9] Make sure that include/asm-powerpc/spinlock.h does not trigger compilation warnings
2008-06-28 6:51 [PATCH 2.6.25.9] Make sure that include/asm-powerpc/spinlock.h does not trigger compilation warnings Bart Van Assche
@ 2008-06-28 15:07 ` Kumar Gala
2008-06-28 15:19 ` Bart Van Assche
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Kumar Gala @ 2008-06-28 15:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bart Van Assche; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, Paul Mackerras
On Jun 28, 2008, at 1:51 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> When compiling kernel modules for ppc that include <linux/
> spinlock.h>, gcc
> prints a warning message every time it encounters a function
> declaration where
> the inline keyword appears after the return type. The patch below
> makes sure
> that the order of the inline keyword and the return type is as gcc
> expects it.
> Additionally, the __inline__ keyword is replaced by inline, as
> checkpatch
> expects.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@gmail.com>
what version of gcc and what config are you building for?
- k
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2.6.25.9] Make sure that include/asm-powerpc/spinlock.h does not trigger compilation warnings
2008-06-28 15:07 ` Kumar Gala
@ 2008-06-28 15:19 ` Bart Van Assche
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Bart Van Assche @ 2008-06-28 15:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kumar Gala; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, Paul Mackerras
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> On Jun 28, 2008, at 1:51 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>
>> When compiling kernel modules for ppc that include <linux/spinlock.h>, gcc
>> prints a warning message every time it encounters a function declaration
>> where
>> the inline keyword appears after the return type. The patch below makes
>> sure
>> that the order of the inline keyword and the return type is as gcc expects
>> it.
>> Additionally, the __inline__ keyword is replaced by inline, as checkpatch
>> expects.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@gmail.com>
>
> what version of gcc and what config are you building for?
The gcc details are as follows (openSUSE 10.3 PPC running on a PS3):
$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: powerpc64-suse-linux
Configured with: ../configure --enable-threads=posix --prefix=/usr
--with-local-prefix=/usr/local --infodir=/usr/share/info
--mandir=/usr/share/man --libdir=/usr/lib --libexecdir=/usr/lib
--enable-languages=c,c++,objc,fortran,obj-c++,java,ada
--enable-checking=release
--with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.2.1 --enable-ssp
--disable-libssp --disable-libgcj --with-slibdir=/lib
--with-system-zlib --enable-shared --enable-__cxa_atexit
--enable-libstdcxx-allocator=new --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--program-suffix=-4.2 --enable-version-specific-runtime-libs
--without-system-libunwind --with-cpu=default32 --enable-secureplt
--with-long-double-128 --host=powerpc64-suse-linux
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.2.1 (SUSE Linux)
Bart.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-06-28 15:19 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-06-28 6:51 [PATCH 2.6.25.9] Make sure that include/asm-powerpc/spinlock.h does not trigger compilation warnings Bart Van Assche
2008-06-28 15:07 ` Kumar Gala
2008-06-28 15:19 ` Bart Van Assche
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).