linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Breakage in arch/mips/kernel/traps.c for 64bit

To: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: Breakage in arch/mips/kernel/traps.c for 64bit
From: tsbogend@alpha.franken.de (Thomas Bogendoerfer)
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 00:08:04 +0200
Cc: ralf@linux-mips.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <20080504.223944.41198532.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20080502101113.GA24408@linux-mips.org> <20080504.011647.93019265.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> <20080503224849.GA2314@alpha.franken.de> <20080504.223944.41198532.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 10:39:44PM +0900, Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
> > +   unsigned long __user *sp = (unsigned long __user *)(reg29 & ~3);
> ...
> > +   while (!kstack_end(sp)) {
> > +           if (__get_user(addr, sp++)) {
> 
> This will leads a sparse warning since an argument for kstack_end is 'void *'.
> 
>       while (!kstack_end((void *)(unsigned long)sp)) {
> 
> will make this part sparse-free, though it seems a bit ugly.

hmm, would leaving sp as unsigned long * and casting it for __get_user()
make sparse happy ?

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessary a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>