On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 12:52:09AM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> We could even do without __private_ptr, and that's surely easier to do.
> Actually I think that it could be done like for i386:
We can, but I'm looking for a safe patch to quiet the warnings. I did
strip down __get_user and __put_us
On Thursday 23 March 2006 21:58, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 04:22:41PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > 686:if (get_user(c, buf))
> > where "buf" is a "const char __user *".
> >
> > It's complaining because "const" was lost.
> >
> > Ultimately, I think we should remove
On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 04:22:41PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> 686: if (get_user(c, buf))
> where "buf" is a "const char __user *".
>
> It's complaining because "const" was lost.
>
> Ultimately, I think we should remove all this copying of pointers and do like
> i386 in this regard - th
On Thursday 09 March 2006 17:57, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 08:31:15PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > To fix that, we should remove some excess constness. Try the attached
> > patch
> That's certainly a lot simpler than what I had. I'll drop it in my tree
> and see what it does.
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 08:31:15PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> To fix that, we should remove some excess constness. Try the attached patch
That's certainly a lot simpler than what I had. I'll drop it in my tree
and see what it does.
Jeff
---
About
http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/work/current/2.6/2.6.16-rc4/patches/uaccess-warning
I read the patch which was rejected and noticed that you put there style
changes to get_user. They should be kept while the rest of the patch thrown
away, obviously, as discussed, but reading that ma
