Leech, Christopher wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:52:27AM -0700, Love, Robert W wrote: >> Leech, Christopher wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:38:29AM -0700, Robert Love wrote: >>>> When building with a .config generated from 'make allmodconfig' >>>> some build warnings are generated. This patch corrects the >>>> warnings, adds a FC_FID_NONE (= 0) enumeration for FC-IDs and >>>> cleans up one variable naming to meet our variable naming >>>> conventions. For example, fc_lport's should be named "lport," not >>>> "lp." >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Robert Love <[email protected]> >>> >>>> @@ -535,7 +535,8 @@ static void fc_rport_plogi_resp(struct fc_seq >>>> *sp, struct fc_frame *fp, >>>> >>>> op = fc_frame_payload_op(fp); >>>> if (op == ELS_LS_ACC && >>>> - (plp = fc_frame_payload_get(fp, sizeof(*plp))) != NULL) { >>>> + (plp = fc_frame_payload_get(fp, >>>> + sizeof(struct fc_els_flogi))) != NULL) { >>>> rport->port_name = get_unaligned_be64(&plp->fl_wwpn); >>>> rport->node_name = get_unaligned_be64(&plp->fl_wwnn); >>>> >>> >>> Was there a warning fixed by this change? I find the split long >>> line uglier than the existing use of sizeof on a variable instead >>> of a type. >>> >> Yeah, it did fix the compile warning and I agree with you that the >> split line is obnoxious. Would initializing plp to NULL would be >> preferable? > > I thought this patch did both? (In the preceding chunk that I didn't > quote) If the initialization to NULL alone fixes it, then I'd prefer > not to make this sizeof change.
Ah, missed that. OK, I'll fix up the sizeof() and repost. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
