On Tuesday 07 June 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 01:22:29PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > I guess what happened is that some variables are traditionally marked
> > as volatile although they shouldn't be, and most architectures have
> > adapted their bitops to make the
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 01:22:29PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 June 2011, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > You mean the host_busy variable in the IDE code?
> > That would also apply to context_flag in the DRM code:
> >
> > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_context.c:233: warning: passing argument
On Tuesday 07 June 2011, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> You mean the host_busy variable in the IDE code?
> That would also apply to context_flag in the DRM code:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_context.c:233: warning: passing argument 2 of
> ?__constant_test_and_set_bit? discards qualifiers from pointer
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 22:11, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 06 June 2011 22:07:53 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>
>> This fixes a.o.
>>
>> drivers/ide/ide-io.c: In function ?ide_lock_host?:
>> drivers/ide/ide-io.c:415: warning: passing argument 2 of
>> ?__constant_test_and_set_bit? discards
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 22:11, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Monday 06 June 2011 22:07:53 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
This fixes a.o.
drivers/ide/ide-io.c: In function ‘ide_lock_host’:
drivers/ide/ide-io.c:415: warning: passing argument 2 of
‘__constant_test_and_set_bit’ discards
On Tuesday 07 June 2011, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
You mean the host_busy variable in the IDE code?
That would also apply to context_flag in the DRM code:
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_context.c:233: warning: passing argument 2 of
‘__constant_test_and_set_bit’ discards qualifiers from pointer target
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 01:22:29PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 07 June 2011, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
You mean the host_busy variable in the IDE code?
That would also apply to context_flag in the DRM code:
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_context.c:233: warning: passing argument 2 of
On Tuesday 07 June 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 01:22:29PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
I guess what happened is that some variables are traditionally marked
as volatile although they shouldn't be, and most architectures have
adapted their bitops to make the warnings
