From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S261732AbVA3RAO@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S261732AbVA3RAO (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Sun, 30 Jan 2005 12:00:14 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261730AbVA3RAO
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Sun, 30 Jan 2005 12:00:14 -0500
Received: from fire.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:24005 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261734AbVA3Q5Z (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 30 Jan 2005 11:57:25 -0500
Message-ID: <41FD0FED.9000806@osdl.org>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 08:48:45 -0800
From: "Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (X11/20041103)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk>
CC: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Achim Leubner <achim_leubner@adaptec.com>,
       Boji Tony Kannanthanam <boji.t.kannanthanam@intel.com>,
       Johannes Dinner <johannes_dinner@adaptec.com>,
       linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: shouldn't "irq" be module_param_array instead of module_param
 in scsi/gdth.c ?
References: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0501301653480.2731@dragon.hygekrogen.localhost>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0501301653480.2731@dragon.hygekrogen.localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Jesper Juhl wrote:
> This little warning made me take a closer look : 
> drivers/scsi/gdth.c:645: warning: return from incompatible pointer type
> 
> And line 645 looks like this :
> 
> module_param(irq, int, 0);
> 
> looking a bit up in the file I find :
> 
> /* IRQ list for GDT3000/3020 EISA controllers */
> static int irq[MAXHA] __initdata =
> {0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,
>  0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff,0xff};
> 
> That certainly looks like an array to me, so I'm wondering if something 
> like this patch would be correct?  I'm not familliar enough with 
> module_param* to be completely confident, but this silences the warning.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk>
> 
> --- linux-2.6.11-rc2-bk7-orig/drivers/scsi/gdth.c	2005-01-22 21:59:46.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux-2.6.11-rc2-bk7/drivers/scsi/gdth.c	2005-01-30 16:52:45.000000000 +0100
> @@ -642,7 +642,7 @@ static int probe_eisa_isa = 0;
>  static int force_dma32 = 0;
>  
>  /* parameters for modprobe/insmod */
> -module_param(irq, int, 0);
> +module_param_array(irq, int, NULL, 0);
>  module_param(disable, int, 0);
>  module_param(reserve_mode, int, 0);
>  module_param_array(reserve_list, int, NULL, 0);

Yep, same as:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=110540330511653&w=2

-- 
~Randy