arch/i386/kernel/acpi/boot.c

I've never done any kernel work before, but the gcc 4 warning fixes seems like a fairly easy place to start. As there will ultimately be several hundred patches, is there are particular order to fix these? I've been tinkering with them simply in compiled order.

Should I be sending/cc'ing these patches to somewhere besides KJML as I write them? I know that many of the various parts have their own mailings lists, but I don't begin to know what all of them are. What about trivial patch monkey?

Thanks,
jonathan

Here's my first would-be patch; anything I should change?
==============================================

Description: Fixes gcc 4 warnings. See
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=110348353800003 for details

diff -Nru a/arch/i386/kernel/acpi/boot.c b/arch/i386/kernel/acpi/boot.c
@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@
                mapped_size += PAGE_SIZE;
        }
 
-       return ((unsigned char *) base + offset);
+       return ((char *) base + offset);
 }
 #endif

_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors

For these, it may be useful to directly paste the warning you are fixing rather than referencing a URL. Or at least be a little more detailed as why gcc 4 complains, so that more experienced devs may be able to comment directly on the gcc 4 changes.

As far as knowing subsystem lists, just go by MAINTAINERS (it's in the root dir of kernel source).

At least in reply, it looks like spaces became tabs, but maybe that is just GMail's reply. I am just surprised you were able to get GMail to protect tabs. You were able to apply the inlined patch on your system (the one from the E-mail, not necessarily the only you inlined).

I haven't messed with gcc 4, but I can trust your ability to read warnings and correct them intelligently :) Seems ok to me.

-Nish

_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors

hi Jonathan,
the complain of ggc4 is correct. defining char and returning unsigned char is wrong. but i would exspect a void * here as a quick look at boot.c says that the result is always casted to some other struct foo *.

I am not an expert on that can someone please comment it ?

I found also no references outside boot.c perhaps 'static' is usefull here ?

re,
walter

_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors