From: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@student.ltu.se>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: linux-pcmcia@lists.infradead.org,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] pcmcia/3c574_cs: Fix dubious bitfield warning
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 02:40:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <475F3C28.7010409@student.ltu.se> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071211131936.3379f2af@the-village.bc.nu>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1680 bytes --]
Alan Cox wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 05:32:38 +0100 (MET)
> Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@student.ltu.se> wrote:
>
>
>> Fixing:
>> CHECK drivers/net/pcmcia/3c574_cs.c
>> drivers/net/pcmcia/3c574_cs.c:194:13: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned'
>> drivers/net/pcmcia/3c574_cs.c:196:14: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned'
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@student.ltu.se>
>> ---
>> Is there a reason for not doing it this way?
>>
>
> How is the endianness handled here (I suspect its always been broken)
>
Guess so, but it should not handle the endians differently with such a
change, does it?
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/pcmcia/3c574_cs.c b/drivers/net/pcmcia/3c574_cs.c
>> index ad134a6..97b6daa 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/pcmcia/3c574_cs.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/pcmcia/3c574_cs.c
>> @@ -190,10 +190,10 @@ enum Window3 { /* Window 3: MAC/config bits. */
>> union wn3_config {
>> int i;
>> struct w3_config_fields {
>> - unsigned int ram_size:3, ram_width:1, ram_speed:2, rom_size:2;
>> - int pad8:8;
>> - unsigned int ram_split:2, pad18:2, xcvr:3, pad21:1, autoselect:1;
>> - int pad24:7;
>> + u8 ram_size:3, ram_width:1, ram_speed:2, rom_size:2;
>> + u8 pad8;
>> + u8 ram_split:2, pad18:2, xcvr:3, pad21:1;
>> + u8 autoselect:1, pad24:7;
>>
>
> Just changing the int pad to unsigned int pad would be safer in terms of
> not causing changes. Simply delcaring a 32bit field and bit masks to
> and/or into it is probably a lot saner in the general case.
>
Thought about it before and with the endian-issue it seem like a better
solution.
So, something like this?
[-- Attachment #2: drivers_net_pcmcia_3c574_cs.c-dubious-bitfield.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1062 bytes --]
Fixing:
CHECK drivers/net/pcmcia/3c574_cs.c
drivers/net/pcmcia/3c574_cs.c:194:13: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned'
drivers/net/pcmcia/3c574_cs.c:196:14: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned'
Signed-off-by: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@student.ltu.se>
---
Moved 'autoselect' to the last line to make every line 8 bits.
Is there a reason for not doing it this way?
diff --git a/drivers/net/pcmcia/3c574_cs.c b/drivers/net/pcmcia/3c574_cs.c
index ad134a6..e549427 100644
--- a/drivers/net/pcmcia/3c574_cs.c
+++ b/drivers/net/pcmcia/3c574_cs.c
@@ -190,10 +190,10 @@ enum Window3 { /* Window 3: MAC/config bits. */
union wn3_config {
int i;
struct w3_config_fields {
- unsigned int ram_size:3, ram_width:1, ram_speed:2, rom_size:2;
- int pad8:8;
- unsigned int ram_split:2, pad18:2, xcvr:3, pad21:1, autoselect:1;
- int pad24:7;
+ u32 ram_size:3, ram_width:1, ram_speed:2, rom_size:2,
+ pad8:8,
+ ram_split:2, pad18:2, xcvr:3, pad21:1,
+ autoselect:1, pad24:7;
} u;
};
prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-12-12 1:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-12-11 4:32 [PATCH 1/6] pcmcia/3c574_cs: Fix dubious bitfield warning Richard Knutsson
2007-12-11 4:32 ` [PATCH 2/6] pcmcia/3c574_cs: Fix 'shadow variable' warning Richard Knutsson
2007-12-11 13:22 ` Alan Cox
2007-12-11 4:32 ` [PATCH 3/6] pcmcia/axnet_cs: Make functions static Richard Knutsson
2007-12-11 4:32 ` [PATCH 4/6] pcmcia/axnet_cs: Make use of 'max()' instead of handcrafted one Richard Knutsson
2007-12-11 4:32 ` [PATCH 5/6] pcmcia/fmvj18x_cs: Fix 'shadow variable' warning Richard Knutsson
2007-12-11 4:33 ` [PATCH 6/6] pcmcia/pcnet_cs: " Richard Knutsson
2007-12-11 13:19 ` [PATCH 1/6] pcmcia/3c574_cs: Fix dubious bitfield warning Alan Cox
2007-12-12 1:40 ` Richard Knutsson [this message]
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=475F3C28.7010409@student.ltu.se \
--to=ricknu-0@student.ltu.se \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pcmcia@lists.infradead.org \
/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