From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: "Rustad\, Mark D" <mark.d.rustad@intel.com>
Cc: "Kirsher\, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] moduleparam: Resolve missing-field-initializer warning
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 11:22:57 +0930 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ppfakf46.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <F8A4F5BF-C490-4099-9360-0C771451FF1D@intel.com>
"Rustad, Mark D" <mark.d.rustad@intel.com> writes:
> On Aug 31, 2014, at 5:52 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> writes:
>>> From: Mark Rustad <mark.d.rustad@intel.com>
>>>
>>> Resolve a missing-field-initializer warning, that is produced
>>> by every reference to module_param_call, by using designated
>>> initialization for the first field. That is enough to silence
>>> the complaint.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mark Rustad <mark.d.rustad@intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> include/linux/moduleparam.h | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> Strange, I haven't seen this warning. Compiler version? And it's good
>> to quote the error message, so people can google it.
>
> The message is only seen when doing a W=2 build. I happened to be using gcc 4.8.3, but I think most versions would produce the warning when it is enabled. It can either be silenced by using even a single designated initializer as I did here, or providing values for all of the fields. Because of the number of references to the macro, this change silences many warnings in W=2 builds.
>
> One instance of the full warning message looks like this:
>
> /home/share/git/nn-mdr/include/linux/moduleparam.h:198:16: warning: missing initializer for field ‘free’ of ‘struct kernel_param_ops’ [-Wmissing-field-initializers]
> static struct kernel_param_ops __param_ops_##name = \
> ^
> /home/share/git/nn-mdr/fs/fuse/inode.c:35:1: note: in expansion of macro ‘module_param_call’
> module_param_call(max_user_bgreq, set_global_limit, param_get_uint,
> ^
> /home/share/git/nn-mdr/include/linux/moduleparam.h:56:9: note: ‘free’ declared here
> void (*free)(void *arg);
OK, I pasted this into your commit message, and applied it. See below.
Thanks!
Rusty.
From: Mark Rustad <mark.d.rustad@intel.com>
Subject: moduleparam: Resolve missing-field-initializer warning
Resolve a missing-field-initializer warning, that is produced
by every reference to module_param_call, by using designated
initialization for the first field. That is enough to silence
the complaint.
The message is only seen when doing a W=2 build. I happened to be using gcc
4.8.3, but I think most versions would produce the warning when it is
enabled. It can either be silenced by using even a single designated
initializer as I did here, or providing values for all of the fields. Because
of the number of references to the macro, this change silences many warnings
in W=2 builds.
One instance of the full warning message looks like this:
/home/share/git/nn-mdr/include/linux/moduleparam.h:198:16: warning: missing
initializer for field ‘free’ of ‘struct kernel_param_ops’
[-Wmissing-field-initializers]
static struct kernel_param_ops __param_ops_##name = \
^
/home/share/git/nn-mdr/fs/fuse/inode.c:35:1: note: in expansion of macro
‘module_param_call’
module_param_call(max_user_bgreq, set_global_limit, param_get_uint,
^
/home/share/git/nn-mdr/include/linux/moduleparam.h:56:9: note: ‘free’
declared here
void (*free)(void *arg);
Signed-off-by: Mark Rustad <mark.d.rustad@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
---
include/linux/moduleparam.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/moduleparam.h b/include/linux/moduleparam.h
index 593501996574..b43f4752304e 100644
--- a/include/linux/moduleparam.h
+++ b/include/linux/moduleparam.h
@@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ struct kparam_array
/* Obsolete - use module_param_cb() */
#define module_param_call(name, set, get, arg, perm) \
static struct kernel_param_ops __param_ops_##name = \
- { 0, (void *)set, (void *)get }; \
+ { .flags = 0, (void *)set, (void *)get }; \
__module_param_call(MODULE_PARAM_PREFIX, \
name, &__param_ops_##name, arg, \
(perm) + sizeof(__check_old_set_param(set))*0, -1, 0)
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-09-05 2:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-29 13:08 [PATCH] moduleparam: Resolve missing-field-initializer warning Jeff Kirsher
2014-09-01 0:52 ` Rusty Russell
2014-09-02 18:01 ` Rustad, Mark D
2014-09-05 1:52 ` Rusty Russell [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=87ppfakf46.fsf@rustcorp.com.au \
--to=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.d.rustad@intel.com \
/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