[PATCH] [TIPC]: Changed msg_set_bits params type

[PATCH] [TIPC]: Changed msg_set_bits params type

[Jon Paul Maloy]

To ease use of sparse, as requested by Ingo Oeser.

Signed-off-by: Jon Paul Maloy <jon.maloy@ericsson.com>
---
 net/tipc/msg.h |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/tipc/msg.h b/net/tipc/msg.h
index 5c64e55..f9f3dd0 100644
--- a/net/tipc/msg.h
+++ b/net/tipc/msg.h
@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ static inline void msg_set_word(struct tipc_msg *m, 
u32 w, u32 val)
 }

 static inline void msg_set_bits(struct tipc_msg *m, u32 w,
-                               u32 pos, u32 mask, u32 val)
+                               u32 pos, __be32 mask, __be32 val)
 {
        val = (val & mask) << pos;
        val = htonl(val);
--
1.5.0.5

///jon

Re: [PATCH] [TIPC]: Changed msg_set_bits params type

[David Miller]

From: Jon Paul Maloy <jon.maloy@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:57:55 -0400

> To ease use of sparse, as requested by Ingo Oeser.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jon Paul Maloy <jon.maloy@ericsson.com>

Did you actually run sparse to see what warnings this change
adds or deletes or are you submitting untested changes?

Re: [PATCH] [TIPC]: Changed msg_set_bits params type

[Jon Paul Maloy]

David Miller wrote:
> Did you actually run sparse to see what warnings this change
> adds or deletes or are you submitting untested changes?
>
>   
I did, and I am aware that sparse shows several warnings
for TIPC, which we will have to fix this asap, of course.
The patched line did not show up in the warning list, which
along with a full regression test made me conclude that we
didn't introduce a problem, at least. I see now that it
didn't cause a warning before the change either, so I was
probably too quick to try to please people. You can can
ignore the patch if you want to, but it is safe.

///jon

Re: [PATCH] [TIPC]: Changed msg_set_bits params type

[David Miller]

From: Jon Paul Maloy <jon.maloy@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:50:42 -0400

> David Miller wrote:
> > Did you actually run sparse to see what warnings this change
> > adds or deletes or are you submitting untested changes?
> >
> >   
> I did, and I am aware that sparse shows several warnings
> for TIPC, which we will have to fix this asap, of course.
> The patched line did not show up in the warning list, which
> along with a full regression test made me conclude that we
> didn't introduce a problem, at least. I see now that it
> didn't cause a warning before the change either, so I was
> probably too quick to try to please people. You can can
> ignore the patch if you want to, but it is safe.

Thanks for clarifying, but your email client corrupted the patch by
mangling the whitespace and adding newlines to break up long lines.

I feel like I write this to somebody every single day, but
could you please email patches to yourself and test that
they actually apply instead of wasting my time like this?