From: Inaky Perez-Gonzalez <inaky@linux.intel.com>
To: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi>
Cc: Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, wimax@linuxwimax.org, greg@kroah.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] wimax: fix '#ifdef CONFIG_BUG' layout to avoid warning
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 09:20:17 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200901070920.18032.inaky@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0901071200080.27307@wrl-59.cs.helsinki.fi>
On Wednesday 07 January 2009, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez wrote:
> > Reported by Randy Dunlap:
> > > Also, this warning needs to be fixed:
> > >
> > > linux-next-20090106/net/wimax/id-table.c:133: warning: ISO C90
> > > forbids mixed declarations and code
> >
> > Move the return on #defined(CONFIG_BUG) below the variable
> > declarations so it doesn't violate ISO C90.
> >
> > On wimax_id_table_release() we want to do a debug check if CONFIG_BUG
> > is enabled. However, we also want the debug code to be always compiled
> > to ensure there is no bitrot.
>
> I hope this kind of solution won't add some warnings? Besides, this seems
> rather strange reasoning as CONFIG_BUG is mostly enabled anyway?
Well, it is legal code -- short of 'if (1) return'. It doesn't warn (and
it should not).
> > -#ifndef CONFIG_BUG
> > - return;
> > -#endif
> > struct wimax_dev *wimax_dev;
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_BUG
>
> Did you perhaps mean ifndef here??? :-)
Sigh ... you are right ... good thing I triple checked.
Sending updated patch series.
Thanks,
--
Inaky
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-07 17:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-07 7:58 [PATCH 0/3] wimax: Kbuild / rfkill-build fixes Inaky Perez-Gonzalez
2009-01-07 7:58 ` [PATCH 1/3] wimax: fix '#ifdef CONFIG_BUG' layout to avoid warning Inaky Perez-Gonzalez
2009-01-07 10:25 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2009-01-07 17:20 ` Inaky Perez-Gonzalez [this message]
2009-01-07 19:42 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2009-01-07 20:57 ` Inaky Perez-Gonzalez
2009-01-07 7:58 ` [PATCH 2/3] wimax: fix kconfig interactions with rfkill and input layers Inaky Perez-Gonzalez
2009-01-07 7:58 ` [PATCH 3/3] wimax: testing for rfkill support should also test for CONFIG_RFKILL_MODULE Inaky Perez-Gonzalez
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=200901070920.18032.inaky@linux.intel.com \
--to=inaky@linux.intel.com \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wimax@linuxwimax.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).