From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264563AbTLCM47 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 07:56:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264564AbTLCM47 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 07:56:59 -0500 Received: from mail.fh-wedel.de ([213.39.232.194]:8154 "EHLO mail.fh-wedel.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264563AbTLCM45 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 07:56:57 -0500 Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:56:48 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel To: Sven Luther Cc: Johannes Stezenbach , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.6.0-test9 ioctl compile warnings in userspace Message-ID: <20031203125648.GC1947@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> References: <20031112163750.GB18989@convergence.de> <20031202114350.GA25170@iliana> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20031202114350.GA25170@iliana> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2 December 2003 12:43:50 +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 05:37:50PM +0100, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > > Hi, > > > > the patch below fixes > > > > warning: signed and unsigned type in conditional expression > > > > when compiling userspace programs with a glibc built against > > 2.6 kernel headers. > > > > This is a better version of my previous patch which aims > > to fix all affected architectures. > > I am curious about this. > > This patch has been proposed since almost a month or more now, and > clearly nobody seems to care about this, since it didn't make it in the > 2.6.0-test11 tarball (don't know about more recent bk trees though) nor > do the debian glibc maintainer judge the issue important enough to act > on it (despite it breaking buildage of other packages). > > So, is there a reason why not to solve this problem this way, or a > particular reason why __invalid_size_argument_for_IOC is still int and > not unsigned int ? It doesn't clearly fix a bug, afaics. Also, most kernel hackers don't care too much about the signed/unsigned warnings, as they are 99% noise. Resend the patch after 2.6.0 has been released, I don't see any change for it to go in before. Jörn -- People will accept your ideas much more readily if you tell them that Benjamin Franklin said it first. -- unknown