Re: [patch 1/2] m68k: runtime patching infrastructure

[Eric Dumazet]

Andrew Morton a écrit :
> On Mon, 28 May 2007 21:16:31 +0200
> Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > --- a/include/asm-m68k/module.h
> > +++ b/include/asm-m68k/module.h
> > @@ -1,7 +1,38 @@
> >  #ifndef _ASM_M68K_MODULE_H
> >  #define _ASM_M68K_MODULE_H
> > -struct mod_arch_specific { };
> > +
> > +struct mod_arch_specific {
> > +	struct m68k_fixup_info *fixup_start, *fixup_end;
> > +};
>
> Here we use struct m68k_fixup_info.
>
> > +#define MODULE_ARCH_INIT {				\
> > +	.fixup_start		= __start_fixup,	\
> > +	.fixup_end		= __stop_fixup,		\
> > +}
> > +
> >  #define Elf_Shdr Elf32_Shdr
> >  #define Elf_Sym Elf32_Sym
> >  #define Elf_Ehdr Elf32_Ehdr
> > +
> > +
> > +enum m68k_fixup_type {
> > +	m68k_fixup_memoffset,
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct m68k_fixup_info {
> > +	enum m68k_fixup_type type;
> > +	void *addr;
> > +};
>
> and later we define it.
>
> How come it doesn't spit warnings?
>
> I think it could be tightened up even if it happens not to warn?


struct a {
	struct not_yet_defined *start, *end;
};

struct not_yet_defined {
	void *foo;
};

Is a valid and gives no warnings.

Still I didnt tried to compile a m68k kernel, so I guess I shouldnt speak here :)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/