Re: [PATCH] warning in SCTP

2006-11-09 Thread David Miller
From: Sridhar Samudrala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:29:49 -0800 > On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 11:09 -0500, Vlad Yasevich wrote: > > Meelis Roos wrote: > > >> Actually, I'm backing this one out, it creates new warnings because > > >> callers of this function pass in a "const" pointer. >

Re: [PATCH] warning in SCTP

2006-11-02 Thread Sridhar Samudrala
On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 11:09 -0500, Vlad Yasevich wrote: > Meelis Roos wrote: > >> Actually, I'm backing this one out, it creates new warnings because > >> callers of this function pass in a "const" pointer. > > > > Yes, it now seems it's not so simple. Marking it non-const there would > > mark the

Re: [PATCH] warning in SCTP

2006-11-02 Thread Vlad Yasevich
Meelis Roos wrote: >> Actually, I'm backing this one out, it creates new warnings because >> callers of this function pass in a "const" pointer. > > Yes, it now seems it's not so simple. Marking it non-const there would > mark the it non-const in the whole family of sctp_state_fn_t and I'm not > s

Re: [PATCH] warning in SCTP

2006-11-02 Thread Meelis Roos
Actually, I'm backing this one out, it creates new warnings because callers of this function pass in a "const" pointer. Yes, it now seems it's not so simple. Marking it non-const there would mark the it non-const in the whole family of sctp_state_fn_t and I'm not sure that's the best thing to

Re: [PATCH] warning in SCTP

2006-11-02 Thread Meelis Roos
Sure. Evenso, I did test full make after the single compile was fine (still have it in my scrollback so here it is). So did I do anything wrong here or do we have some dependencies broken somewhere or what? Never mind - I discovered the warning on one box with SCTP enabled in config and tried

Re: [PATCH] warning in SCTP

2006-11-02 Thread Meelis Roos
Actually, I'm backing this one out, it creates new warnings because callers of this function pass in a "const" pointer. OK, fair enough. Will have a look. Please test the complete build when doing warning fixes like this in the future, thanks. Sure. Evenso, I did test full make after the sin

Re: [PATCH] warning in SCTP

2006-11-02 Thread David Miller
From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 00:16:43 -0800 (PST) > From: Meelis Roos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 09:29:16 +0200 (EET) > > >CC [M] net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.o > > net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c: In function 'sctp_unpack_cookie': > > net/sctp/sm_make_ch

Re: [PATCH] warning in SCTP

2006-11-02 Thread Oleg Verych
On 2006-11-02, Meelis Roos wrote: >> There should only be one space before the "void" in the patch, >> your email client (or something else) put another space there. >> >> Also, your email client likes to turn lines containing only >> spaces into empty lines, which also corrupts the patch. > > cg-d

Re: [PATCH] warning in SCTP

2006-11-02 Thread Meelis Roos
There should only be one space before the "void" in the patch, your email client (or something else) put another space there. Also, your email client likes to turn lines containing only spaces into empty lines, which also corrupts the patch. cg-diff > file and in pine 4.61 ^R read a file. So I

Re: [PATCH] warning in SCTP

2006-11-02 Thread David Miller
From: Meelis Roos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 09:29:16 +0200 (EET) >CC [M] net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.o > net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c: In function 'sctp_unpack_cookie': > net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c:1358: warning: initialization discards qualifiers > from pointer target type > > The rea

[PATCH] warning in SCTP

2006-11-01 Thread Meelis Roos
CC [M] net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.o net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c: In function 'sctp_unpack_cookie': net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c:1358: warning: initialization discards qualifiers from pointer target type The reason is that sctp_unpack_cookie() takes a const struct sctp_endpoint and modifies the digest