[PATCH] Fix a const assignment in moxa_load_fw() - Kernel

This is a discussion on [PATCH] Fix a const assignment in moxa_load_fw() - Kernel ; Fix an assignment of a const pointer to a non-const pointer in moxa_load_fw(). This was introduced by patch 037182346f0991683cc7320a257c3f6089432cee. Signed-off-by: David Howells --- drivers/char/moxa.c | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/char/moxa.c b/drivers/char/moxa.c index d57d3a6..e21346d ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: [PATCH] Fix a const assignment in moxa_load_fw()

  1. [PATCH] Fix a const assignment in moxa_load_fw()

    Fix an assignment of a const pointer to a non-const pointer in moxa_load_fw().

    This was introduced by patch 037182346f0991683cc7320a257c3f6089432cee.

    Signed-off-by: David Howells
    ---

    drivers/char/moxa.c | 4 ++--
    1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)


    diff --git a/drivers/char/moxa.c b/drivers/char/moxa.c
    index d57d3a6..e21346d 100644
    --- a/drivers/char/moxa.c
    +++ b/drivers/char/moxa.c
    @@ -721,7 +721,7 @@ static int moxa_load_code(struct moxa_board_conf *brd, const void *ptr,

    static int moxa_load_fw(struct moxa_board_conf *brd, const struct firmware *fw)
    {
    - void *ptr = fw->data;
    + const void *ptr = fw->data;
    char rsn[64];
    u16 lens[5];
    size_t len;
    @@ -734,7 +734,7 @@ static int moxa_load_fw(struct moxa_board_conf *brd, const struct firmware *fw)
    u8 model; /* C218T=1, C320T=2, CP204=3 */
    u8 reserved2[8];
    __le16 len[5];
    - } *hdr = ptr;
    + } const *hdr = ptr;

    BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(hdr->len) != ARRAY_SIZE(lens));


    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  2. Re: [PATCH] Fix a const assignment in moxa_load_fw()

    On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:44:16 +0100
    David Howells wrote:

    > Fix an assignment of a const pointer to a non-const pointer in moxa_load_fw().
    >
    > This was introduced by patch 037182346f0991683cc7320a257c3f6089432cee.
    >
    > Signed-off-by: David Howells


    Acked-by: Alan Cox
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  3. Re: [PATCH] Fix a const assignment in moxa_load_fw()

    On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 17:10:29 +0100 Alan Cox wrote:

    > On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:44:16 +0100
    > David Howells wrote:
    >
    > > Fix an assignment of a const pointer to a non-const pointer in moxa_load_fw().
    > >
    > > This was introduced by patch 037182346f0991683cc7320a257c3f6089432cee.
    > >
    > > Signed-off-by: David Howells

    >
    > Acked-by: Alan Cox


    Appears to already be fixed in linux-next, perhaps by this:

    commit b30a6a47716ba1a5112b44f0a3962daff961935e
    Author: Alan Cox
    Date: Fri Jul 4 19:18:14 2008 +1000

    83-tty-moxa-warning

    Signed-off-by: Alan Cox

    which, err, isn't in today's linux-next because the whole tty tree got
    accidentally dropped. Not that this was a tty patch.

    Hopefully the patches in this tree will get title and changelog repairs
    before they go much further. I suspect a lot of this damage was due to
    incompatibility between Alan's patch-file format and the expectations of
    Stephen's scripts.
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  4. Re: [PATCH] Fix a const assignment in moxa_load_fw()

    Andrew Morton wrote:

    > Appears to already be fixed in linux-next, perhaps by this:


    Some of the maintainers have already pushed through the patches I've sent to
    you and them.

    David
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  5. Re: [PATCH] Fix a const assignment in moxa_load_fw()

    On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:48:21 +0100 David Howells wrote:

    > Andrew Morton wrote:
    >
    > > Appears to already be fixed in linux-next, perhaps by this:

    >
    > Some of the maintainers have already pushed through the patches I've sent to
    > you and them.
    >


    No, that was a week-old tree - the warning was fixed independently. As
    they often are - everyone gets to watch them fly past so lots of people
    are motivated to fix them, and are able to test their fixes.

    linux-next would be a better tree against which to do this sort of
    thing. Doing that would avoid this wasted effort, plus linux-next has
    lots of nice new warnings to keep us occupied.
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  6. Re: [PATCH] Fix a const assignment in moxa_load_fw()

    Hi Andrew,

    On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:20:56 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote:
    >
    > Appears to already be fixed in linux-next, perhaps by this:
    >
    > commit b30a6a47716ba1a5112b44f0a3962daff961935e
    > Author: Alan Cox
    > Date: Fri Jul 4 19:18:14 2008 +1000
    >
    > 83-tty-moxa-warning


    Which became 88-tty-moxa-warning and was dropped (the individual patch)
    from next-20080711 because it didn't apply.

    >
    > Signed-off-by: Alan Cox
    >
    > which, err, isn't in today's linux-next because the whole tty tree got
    > accidentally dropped. Not that this was a tty patch.


    All except two patches from the ttydev tree are in
    "today's" (next-20080711) linux-next tree. (The tag is better than
    saying "today" since I am in a different time zone to most of you :-))
    The whole tree was dropped a few days ago but came back.

    > Hopefully the patches in this tree will get title and changelog repairs
    > before they go much further. I suspect a lot of this damage was due to
    > incompatibility between Alan's patch-file format and the expectations of
    > Stephen's scripts.


    Yeah, Alan and I need to have a conversation about that ...

    --
    Cheers,
    Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
    http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkh37DcACgkQjjKRsyhoI8z2iwCfXt3LdB17h6 +N5Wq4dfuAhjpx
    ZFQAn0MvenWVc8hg3xw4U5ZlceNSqcbG
    =kKsn
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


+ Reply to Thread