From: Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net>
To: Yuanhan Liu <yliu.null@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Wei Yang <weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kfifo: remove unnecessary type check
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 07:38:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1351229911.12511.1.camel@wall-e> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1351215971-11639-1-git-send-email-yliu.null@gmail.com>
Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 09:46 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
> From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
>
> Firstly, this kind of type check doesn't work. It does something similay
> like following:
> void * __dummy = NULL;
> __buf = __dummy;
>
> __dummy is defined as void *. Thus it will not trigger warnings as
> expected.
>
> Second, we don't need that kind of check. Since the prototype
> of __kfifo_out is:
> unsigned int __kfifo_out(struct __kfifo *fifo, void *buf, unsigned int len)
>
> buf is defined as void *, so we don't need do the type check. Remove it.
>
> LINK: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/25/386
> LINK: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/25/584
>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Wei Yang <weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net>
> Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
> Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> Signed-off-by: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> include/linux/kfifo.h | 20 --------------------
> 1 file changed, 20 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/kfifo.h b/include/linux/kfifo.h
> index 10308c6..b8c1d03 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kfifo.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kfifo.h
> @@ -390,10 +390,6 @@ __kfifo_int_must_check_helper( \
> unsigned int __ret; \
> const size_t __recsize = sizeof(*__tmp->rectype); \
> struct __kfifo *__kfifo = &__tmp->kfifo; \
> - if (0) { \
> - typeof(__tmp->ptr_const) __dummy __attribute__ ((unused)); \
> - __dummy = (typeof(__val))NULL; \
> - } \
> if (__recsize) \
> __ret = __kfifo_in_r(__kfifo, __val, sizeof(*__val), \
> __recsize); \
> @@ -432,8 +428,6 @@ __kfifo_uint_must_check_helper( \
> unsigned int __ret; \
> const size_t __recsize = sizeof(*__tmp->rectype); \
> struct __kfifo *__kfifo = &__tmp->kfifo; \
> - if (0) \
> - __val = (typeof(__tmp->ptr))0; \
> if (__recsize) \
> __ret = __kfifo_out_r(__kfifo, __val, sizeof(*__val), \
> __recsize); \
> @@ -473,8 +467,6 @@ __kfifo_uint_must_check_helper( \
> unsigned int __ret; \
> const size_t __recsize = sizeof(*__tmp->rectype); \
> struct __kfifo *__kfifo = &__tmp->kfifo; \
> - if (0) \
> - __val = (typeof(__tmp->ptr))NULL; \
> if (__recsize) \
> __ret = __kfifo_out_peek_r(__kfifo, __val, sizeof(*__val), \
> __recsize); \
> @@ -512,10 +504,6 @@ __kfifo_uint_must_check_helper( \
> unsigned long __n = (n); \
> const size_t __recsize = sizeof(*__tmp->rectype); \
> struct __kfifo *__kfifo = &__tmp->kfifo; \
> - if (0) { \
> - typeof(__tmp->ptr_const) __dummy __attribute__ ((unused)); \
> - __dummy = (typeof(__buf))NULL; \
> - } \
> (__recsize) ?\
> __kfifo_in_r(__kfifo, __buf, __n, __recsize) : \
> __kfifo_in(__kfifo, __buf, __n); \
> @@ -565,10 +553,6 @@ __kfifo_uint_must_check_helper( \
> unsigned long __n = (n); \
> const size_t __recsize = sizeof(*__tmp->rectype); \
> struct __kfifo *__kfifo = &__tmp->kfifo; \
> - if (0) { \
> - typeof(__tmp->ptr) __dummy = NULL; \
> - __buf = __dummy; \
> - } \
> (__recsize) ?\
> __kfifo_out_r(__kfifo, __buf, __n, __recsize) : \
> __kfifo_out(__kfifo, __buf, __n); \
> @@ -777,10 +761,6 @@ __kfifo_uint_must_check_helper( \
> unsigned long __n = (n); \
> const size_t __recsize = sizeof(*__tmp->rectype); \
> struct __kfifo *__kfifo = &__tmp->kfifo; \
> - if (0) { \
> - typeof(__tmp->ptr) __dummy __attribute__ ((unused)) = NULL; \
> - __buf = __dummy; \
> - } \
> (__recsize) ? \
> __kfifo_out_peek_r(__kfifo, __buf, __n, __recsize) : \
> __kfifo_out_peek(__kfifo, __buf, __n); \
Did you tried to compile the whole kernel including all the drivers with
your patch?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-26 5:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-26 1:46 [PATCH] kfifo: remove unnecessary type check Yuanhan Liu
2012-10-26 5:38 ` Stefani Seibold [this message]
2012-10-26 6:11 ` Yuanhan Liu
2012-10-26 6:51 ` Stefani Seibold
2012-10-26 7:17 ` Yuanhan Liu
2012-10-26 7:33 ` Yuanhan Liu
2012-10-26 9:26 ` Stefani Seibold
2012-10-26 13:04 ` Yuanhan Liu
2012-10-26 13:42 ` Stefani Seibold
2012-10-27 8:43 ` Yuanhan Liu
[not found] ` <20121026095244.GA815@richard.(null)>
2012-10-26 12:31 ` Yuanhan Liu
[not found] ` <20121027015558.GA3983@richard.(null)>
2012-10-27 8:48 ` Yuanhan Liu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1351229911.12511.1.camel@wall-e \
--to=stefani@seibold.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=yliu.null@gmail.com \
--cc=yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox