linux-next: v4l-dvb tree build warning

linux-next: v4l-dvb tree build warning

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 472 bytes --]

Hi Mauro,

Today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) produced this warning:

drivers/media/video/gspca/sq905c.c: In function 'sd_config':
drivers/media/video/gspca/sq905c.c:207: warning: unused variable 'i'

Introduced by commit 6436e86d8920520f6650bedaa816ed596c7c30b7 ("V4L/DVB
(14006): gscpa_sq905c: Better detection of CIF resolution cameras").

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: v4l-dvb tree build warning

[Hans de Goede]

Gi,

On 01/27/2010 02:12 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Mauro,
>
> Today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) produced this warning:
>
> drivers/media/video/gspca/sq905c.c: In function 'sd_config':
> drivers/media/video/gspca/sq905c.c:207: warning: unused variable 'i'
>
> Introduced by commit 6436e86d8920520f6650bedaa816ed596c7c30b7 ("V4L/DVB
> (14006): gscpa_sq905c: Better detection of CIF resolution cameras").
>

Ack, my bad. Note that a fix for this is pending in Jean Francois' gscpa
tree, and AFAIK he has send a pull request.

Regards,

Hans

Re: linux-next: v4l-dvb tree build warning

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 341 bytes --]

Hi Hans,

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:01:18 +0100 Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Ack, my bad. Note that a fix for this is pending in Jean Francois' gscpa
> tree, and AFAIK he has send a pull request.

OK, thanks.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: v4l-dvb tree build warning

[Theodore Kilgore]

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Hans de Goede wrote:

> Gi,
>
> On 01/27/2010 02:12 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Mauro,
>> 
>> Today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) produced this warning:
>> 
>> drivers/media/video/gspca/sq905c.c: In function 'sd_config':
>> drivers/media/video/gspca/sq905c.c:207: warning: unused variable 'i'
>> 
>> Introduced by commit 6436e86d8920520f6650bedaa816ed596c7c30b7 ("V4L/DVB
>> (14006): gscpa_sq905c: Better detection of CIF resolution cameras").
>> 
>
> Ack, my bad. Note that a fix for this is pending in Jean Francois' gscpa
> tree, and AFAIK he has send a pull request.
>
> Regards,
>
> Hans
>

OK, good. Wherever it came from, it is gone. So disregard the question of 
how to do it, in my previous message.

Theodore Kilgore

Re: linux-next: v4l-dvb tree build warning

[Theodore Kilgore]

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> Hi Mauro,
>
> Today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) produced this warning:
>
> drivers/media/video/gspca/sq905c.c: In function 'sd_config':
> drivers/media/video/gspca/sq905c.c:207: warning: unused variable 'i'
>
> Introduced by commit 6436e86d8920520f6650bedaa816ed596c7c30b7 ("V4L/DVB
> (14006): gscpa_sq905c: Better detection of CIF resolution cameras").
>
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
> http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
>

Hmmm. Indeed this is there. The reason I have been saying that it can't be 
there is, my local copy of sq905c.c had at lines


/* This function is called at probe time just before sd_init */
static int sd_config(struct gspca_dev *gspca_dev,
 		const struct usb_device_id *id)
{
 	struct cam *cam = &gspca_dev->cam;
 	struct sd *dev = (struct sd *) gspca_dev; (here is line 207)
 	int ret;

But, having just done a pull, I have now a file which agrees with the tree 
of Hans de Goede, and it says in it

/* This function is called at probe time just before sd_init */
static int sd_config(struct gspca_dev *gspca_dev,
 		const struct usb_device_id *id)
{
 	struct cam *cam = &gspca_dev->cam;
 	struct sd *dev = (struct sd *) gspca_dev;
 	int i, ret;				  (here is line 207)

Amazing, and I have at this point no idea how it got in there. Again, it 
is not present in the copy I have been staring at for the last several 
days, every time that this issue has come up.

(me scratches head)

Definitely, the declaration of "i" has to come out because it is true it 
is not used.

Hans, what is the quickest and most efficient way to get this fixed? I 
suspect people are in a hurry.


Theodore Kilgore