[PATCH] Fix an incompatible pointer type warning on x86_64 compilations

[PATCH] Fix an incompatible pointer type warning on x86_64 compilations

[David Howells]

Fix an incompatible pointer type warning on x86_64 compilations.
early_memtest() is passing a u64* to find_e820_area_size() which is expecting
an unsigned long.  Change t_start and t_size to unsigned long as those are
also 64-bit types on x88_64.

Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
---

 arch/x86/mm/init_64.c |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)


diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c b/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
index 156e6d7..998a06e 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
@@ -506,7 +506,7 @@ early_param("memtest", parse_memtest);
 
 static void __init early_memtest(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
 {
-	u64 t_start, t_size;
+	unsigned long t_start, t_size;
 	unsigned pattern;
 
 	if (!memtest_pattern)
@@ -525,7 +525,7 @@ static void __init early_memtest(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
 			if (t_start + t_size > end)
 				t_size = end - t_start;
 
-			printk(KERN_CONT "\n  %016llx - %016llx pattern %d",
+			printk(KERN_CONT "\n  %016lx - %016lx pattern %d",
 				t_start, t_start + t_size, pattern);
 
 			memtest(t_start, t_size, pattern);

Re: [PATCH] Fix an incompatible pointer type warning on x86_64 compilations

[Ingo Molnar]

* David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:

> Fix an incompatible pointer type warning on x86_64 compilations.
> early_memtest() is passing a u64* to find_e820_area_size() which is expecting
> an unsigned long.  Change t_start and t_size to unsigned long as those are
> also 64-bit types on x88_64.

applied to tip/x86/urgent, thanks David.

	Ingo

Re: [PATCH] Fix an incompatible pointer type warning on x86_64 compilations

[Kevin Winchester]

On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 1:18 PM, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:
> Fix an incompatible pointer type warning on x86_64 compilations.
> early_memtest() is passing a u64* to find_e820_area_size() which is expecting
> an unsigned long.  Change t_start and t_size to unsigned long as those are
> also 64-bit types on x88_64.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
> ---
>
>  arch/x86/mm/init_64.c |    4 ++--
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c b/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
> index 156e6d7..998a06e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
> @@ -506,7 +506,7 @@ early_param("memtest", parse_memtest);
>
>  static void __init early_memtest(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
>  {
> -       u64 t_start, t_size;
> +       unsigned long t_start, t_size;
>        unsigned pattern;
>
>        if (!memtest_pattern)
> @@ -525,7 +525,7 @@ static void __init early_memtest(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
>                        if (t_start + t_size > end)
>                                t_size = end - t_start;
>
> -                       printk(KERN_CONT "\n  %016llx - %016llx pattern %d",
> +                       printk(KERN_CONT "\n  %016lx - %016lx pattern %d",
>                                t_start, t_start + t_size, pattern);
>
>                        memtest(t_start, t_size, pattern);
>

This is essentially a revert of a patch I sent to Ingo for a warning I
saw in linux-next.  Has find_e820_area_size() changed in linux-next to
take u64 instead of unsigned long?  In any case, the patch should not
have been submitted to Linus, since it was only in next that I saw the
warning.  Sorry for the confusion.

-- 
Kevin Winchester