Re: shouldn't "irq" be module_param_array instead of module_param in scsi/gdth.c ?

["Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org>]

Jesper Juhl wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> 
> 
>>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
>>
> 
> Ohh, I was not aware of that patch, guess I should have searched the 
> archives before posting. Thank you for the info.

Or I should have added to my reply:

Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rddunlap@osdl.org>   8:}

-- 
~Randy