Hi Greg, On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Greg Ungerer <[email protected]> wrote: > Compiling for m68k targets will give the following warning: > > mm/filemap.c: In function ‘clear_bit_unlock_is_negative_byte’: > mm/filemap.c:940:30: warning: passing argument 2 of ‘test_bit’ discards > ‘volatile’ qualifier from pointer target type [-Wdiscarded-qualifiers] > return test_bit(PG_waiters, mem); > ^ > In file included from ./include/linux/bitops.h:36:0, > from ./include/linux/kernel.h:10, > from ./include/linux/list.h:8, > from ./include/linux/wait.h:6, > from ./include/linux/fs.h:5, > from ./include/linux/dax.h:4, > from mm/filemap.c:14: > ./arch/m68k/include/asm/bitops.h:151:19: note: expected ‘const long unsigned > int *’ but argument is of type ‘volatile void *’ > static inline int test_bit(int nr, const unsigned long *vaddr) > ^ > > (This is true at least for a gcc-5.4.0 based toolchain). > > The problem is that the m68k test_bit() arguments do not match the > Documemtation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst defined one. (Most other > architectures define it with "const volatile unsigned long *addr" too). > > Change the m68k test_bit() definition to more closely match the documented > definition. This cleans up the warning. > > Signed-off-by: Greg Ungerer <[email protected]>
Already fixed and queued for v4.11, cfr. "[PATCH 2/2] m68k/bitops: Correct signature of test_bit()" (https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/1/3/505). Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected] In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
