[PATCH] slqb: A not quite so trivial warning

[PATCH] slqb: A not quite so trivial warning

[Alan Cox]

mm/slqb.c:2773: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type

Variable scope...

Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
---

 mm/slqb.c |    8 ++++----
 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)


diff --git a/mm/slqb.c b/mm/slqb.c
index e745d9a..fddcf85 100644
--- a/mm/slqb.c
+++ b/mm/slqb.c
@@ -2770,16 +2770,16 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct delayed_work, cache_trim_work);
 
 static void __cpuinit start_cpu_timer(int cpu)
 {
-	struct delayed_work *cache_trim_work = &per_cpu(cache_trim_work, cpu);
+	struct delayed_work *lcache_trim_work = &per_cpu(cache_trim_work, cpu);
 
 	/*
 	 * When this gets called from do_initcalls via cpucache_init(),
 	 * init_workqueues() has already run, so keventd will be setup
 	 * at that time.
 	 */
-	if (keventd_up() && cache_trim_work->work.func == NULL) {
-		INIT_DELAYED_WORK(cache_trim_work, cache_trim_worker);
-		schedule_delayed_work_on(cpu, cache_trim_work,
+	if (keventd_up() && lcache_trim_work->work.func == NULL) {
+		INIT_DELAYED_WORK(lcache_trim_work, cache_trim_worker);
+		schedule_delayed_work_on(cpu, lcache_trim_work,
 					__round_jiffies_relative(HZ, cpu));
 	}
 }

Re: [PATCH] slqb: A not quite so trivial warning

[Pekka Enberg]

Hi Alan,

Alan Cox wrote:
> mm/slqb.c:2773: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
> 
> Variable scope...
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>

I don't see this warning in my tree. Is this coming from linux-next? Did 
someone change DEFINE_PER_CPU not to prefix the variable name with 
"per_cpu__"?

			Pekka

> ---
> 
>  mm/slqb.c |    8 ++++----
>  1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> 
> diff --git a/mm/slqb.c b/mm/slqb.c
> index e745d9a..fddcf85 100644
> --- a/mm/slqb.c
> +++ b/mm/slqb.c
> @@ -2770,16 +2770,16 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct delayed_work, cache_trim_work);
>  
>  static void __cpuinit start_cpu_timer(int cpu)
>  {
> -	struct delayed_work *cache_trim_work = &per_cpu(cache_trim_work, cpu);
> +	struct delayed_work *lcache_trim_work = &per_cpu(cache_trim_work, cpu);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * When this gets called from do_initcalls via cpucache_init(),
>  	 * init_workqueues() has already run, so keventd will be setup
>  	 * at that time.
>  	 */
> -	if (keventd_up() && cache_trim_work->work.func == NULL) {
> -		INIT_DELAYED_WORK(cache_trim_work, cache_trim_worker);
> -		schedule_delayed_work_on(cpu, cache_trim_work,
> +	if (keventd_up() && lcache_trim_work->work.func == NULL) {
> +		INIT_DELAYED_WORK(lcache_trim_work, cache_trim_worker);
> +		schedule_delayed_work_on(cpu, lcache_trim_work,
>  					__round_jiffies_relative(HZ, cpu));
>  	}
>  }
> 

Re: [PATCH] slqb: A not quite so trivial warning

[Alan Cox]

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:39:13 +0200
Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:

> Hi Alan,
> 
> Alan Cox wrote:
> > mm/slqb.c:2773: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
> > 
> > Variable scope...
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
> 
> I don't see this warning in my tree. Is this coming from linux-next? Did 
> someone change DEFINE_PER_CPU not to prefix the variable name with 
> "per_cpu__"?

I see it from -next on an x86-32 build

Re: [PATCH] slqb: A not quite so trivial warning

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
>> mm/slqb.c:2773: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
>>
>> Variable scope...
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
> 
> I don't see this warning in my tree. Is this coming from linux-next? Did
> someone change DEFINE_PER_CPU not to prefix the variable name with
> "per_cpu__"?

Yeap, the prefix is dropped in the latest percpu tree.  Patch already
pending.

  http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/56948/

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

Re: [PATCH] slqb: A not quite so trivial warning

[Pekka Enberg]

Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> Alan Cox wrote:
>>> mm/slqb.c:2773: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
>>>
>>> Variable scope...
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
>> I don't see this warning in my tree. Is this coming from linux-next? Did
>> someone change DEFINE_PER_CPU not to prefix the variable name with
>> "per_cpu__"?
> 
> Yeap, the prefix is dropped in the latest percpu tree.  Patch already
> pending.
> 
>   http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/56948/
> 
> Thanks.

OK, I applied the above patch. Please CC me on patches that have the 
magic letters S, L, and B in the future.

			Pekka