"Rustad, Mark D" <mark.d.rus...@intel.com> writes:
> On Aug 31, 2014, at 5:52 PM, Rusty Russell <ru...@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirs...@intel.com> writes:
>>> From: Mark Rustad <mark.d.rus...@intel.com>
>>>
>>> Resolve a missing-field-initializer warning, that is produced
>>> by every reference to module_param_call, by using designated
>>> initialization for the first field. That is enough to silence
>>> the complaint.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mark Rustad <mark.d.rus...@intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirs...@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> include/linux/moduleparam.h | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> Strange, I haven't seen this warning. Compiler version? And it's good
>> to quote the error message, so people can google it.
>
> The message is only seen when doing a W=2 build. I happened to be using gcc
> 4.8.3, but I think most versions would produce the warning when it is
> enabled. It can either be silenced by using even a single designated
> initializer as I did here, or providing values for all of the fields. Because
> of the number of references to the macro, this change silences many warnings
> in W=2 builds.
>
> One instance of the full warning message looks like this:
>
> /home/share/git/nn-mdr/include/linux/moduleparam.h:198:16: warning: missing
> initializer for field ‘free’ of ‘struct kernel_param_ops’
> [-Wmissing-field-initializers]
> static struct kernel_param_ops __param_ops_##name = \
> ^
> /home/share/git/nn-mdr/fs/fuse/inode.c:35:1: note: in expansion of macro
> ‘module_param_call’
> module_param_call(max_user_bgreq, set_global_limit, param_get_uint,
> ^
> /home/share/git/nn-mdr/include/linux/moduleparam.h:56:9: note: ‘free’
> declared here
> void (*free)(void *arg);
OK, I pasted this into your commit message, and applied it. See below.
Thanks!
Rusty.
From: Mark Rustad <mark.d.rus...@intel.com>
Subject: moduleparam: Resolve missing-field-initializer warning
Resolve a missing-field-initializer warning, that is produced
by every reference to module_param_call, by using designated
initialization for the first field. That is enough to silence
the complaint.
The message is only seen when doing a W=2 build. I happened to be using gcc
4.8.3, but I think most versions would produce the warning when it is
enabled. It can either be silenced by using even a single designated
initializer as I did here, or providing values for all of the fields. Because
of the number of references to the macro, this change silences many warnings
in W=2 builds.
One instance of the full warning message looks like this:
/home/share/git/nn-mdr/include/linux/moduleparam.h:198:16: warning: missing
initializer for field ‘free’ of ‘struct kernel_param_ops’
[-Wmissing-field-initializers]
static struct kernel_param_ops __param_ops_##name = \
^
/home/share/git/nn-mdr/fs/fuse/inode.c:35:1: note: in expansion of macro
‘module_param_call’
module_param_call(max_user_bgreq, set_global_limit, param_get_uint,
^
/home/share/git/nn-mdr/include/linux/moduleparam.h:56:9: note: ‘free’
declared here
void (*free)(void *arg);
Signed-off-by: Mark Rustad <mark.d.rus...@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirs...@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <ru...@rustcorp.com.au>
---
include/linux/moduleparam.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/moduleparam.h b/include/linux/moduleparam.h
index 593501996574..b43f4752304e 100644
--- a/include/linux/moduleparam.h
+++ b/include/linux/moduleparam.h
@@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ struct kparam_array
/* Obsolete - use module_param_cb() */
#define module_param_call(name, set, get, arg, perm) \
static struct kernel_param_ops __param_ops_##name = \
- { 0, (void *)set, (void *)get }; \
+ { .flags = 0, (void *)set, (void *)get }; \
__module_param_call(MODULE_PARAM_PREFIX, \
name, &__param_ops_##name, arg, \
(perm) + sizeof(__check_old_set_param(set))*0, -1,
0)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
