From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757683AbYHGWKt (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Aug 2008 18:10:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754228AbYHGWKd (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Aug 2008 18:10:33 -0400 Received: from agminet01.oracle.com ([141.146.126.228]:14941 "EHLO agminet01.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754096AbYHGWKc (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Aug 2008 18:10:32 -0400 Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:07:50 -0700 From: Randy Dunlap To: Stephen Rothwell , Cliff Wickman Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for August 7 (SGI UV) Message-Id: <20080807150750.162f816c.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <20080807172027.8180312c.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20080807172027.8180312c.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Organization: Oracle Linux Eng. X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.5.0 (GTK+ 2.12.0; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (This may happen in mainline, but I haven't checked there.) sparse complains about bitfields not being marked as signed or unsigned and about one-bit bitfields being (default) signed (sign bit only!): CHECK /local/linsrc/linux-next-20080807/arch/x86/kernel/tlb_64.c include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:141:22: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned' include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:143:25: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned' include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:145:15: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned' include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:148:14: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned' include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:151:14: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned' include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:154:18: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned' include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:156:18: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned' include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:160:14: error: dubious one-bit signed bitfield include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:164:18: error: dubious one-bit signed bitfield include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:178:19: error: dubious one-bit signed bitfield include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:186:16: error: dubious one-bit signed bitfield include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:190:18: error: dubious one-bit signed bitfield include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:193:16: error: dubious one-bit signed bitfield CC arch/x86/kernel/tlb_64.o Can those struct bitfields be marked as signed or unsigned, please? Thanks. --- ~Randy Linux Plumbers Conference, 17-19 September 2008, Portland, Oregon USA http://linuxplumbersconf.org/