On Sat, 2012-10-06 at 09:53 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 06:20:44PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:23:36 +0200, Paul Bolle said: > > > That is another way to silence GCC here. > > > That's probably a preferable approach - that way, if a bogus val_count gets > > passed in, the caller will be informed of the fact. Which is a lot better > > than > > just papering over the warning. > > As I hinted earlier if someone were to send me a patch...
0) I was hoping to do that. But in the mean time I also filed a bug report for GCC (at Fedora's bugzilla) [0]. 1) In that report (after actually closing it) Jakub Jelinek pointed at the type mismatch between regmap_volatile_range()'s 'num' (unsigned int) and its callers (both use size_t, both through 'val_count'). And, indeed, changing 'num' to size_t also makes this warning go away. This might explain why you didn't see a warning on 32 bit arm (if that is what you running while looking at my patch). 2) I hope to send in a second path shortly, changing 'num' to size_t. My main doubt is whether its problematic that the loop index in regmap_volatile_range() uses unsigned int too. If 'num' would exceed UINT_MAX, that loop would never finish, wouldn't it? But is that actually possible? Are there machines with that many registers? Paul Bolle 0) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862620 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/