[SLOF] [PATCH slof 07/13] e1000: Compile with -Wextra

[Thomas Huth]

On 29/01/2021 03.01, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> 
> 
> On 29/01/2021 02:04, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 27/01/2021 09.57, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>> -Wextra enables a bunch of rather useful checks which this fixes.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik at ozlabs.ru>
>>> ---
>>>   lib/libe1k/e1k.c | 16 ++++++++--------
>>>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/libe1k/e1k.c b/lib/libe1k/e1k.c
>>> index 4dd7d2eb97c2..3bbc75fba199 100644
>>> --- a/lib/libe1k/e1k.c
>>> +++ b/lib/libe1k/e1k.c
>>> @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ static const e1k_dev_t e1k_dev[] = {
>>>       { 0x1016, E1K_82540, "82540EP Mobile" },
>>>       { 0x1017, E1K_82540, "82540EP Desktop" },
>>>       { 0x100E, E1K_82540, "82540EM Desktop" },
>>> -    { 0     , 0 }
>>> +    { 0 }
>>>   };
>>
>> Ack for the above change (or you could simply add a NULL as third 
>> parameter), but are the changes below really required?
> 
> 
> These was a warning that the third parameter is not initialized. So it could 
> be either one zero or three zeroes. I find one more future proof.
> 
> 
>> Seem like you only tried to get rid of the unused-parameter warnings which 
>> you finally switched off anyway?
> 
> No, it is a different warning. Thanks,

So which warnings do you get that you tried to address with the changes 
below? I only get one warning here with -Wextra -Wno-unused-parameter, and 
that's the one that you fixed with above hunk.

  Thomas


>>
>>>   /*
>>> @@ -182,8 +182,8 @@ check_driver(uint16_t vendor_id, uint16_t device_id);
>>>   static int e1k_init(net_driver_t *driver);
>>>   static int e1k_term(void);
>>> -static int e1k_xmit(char *f_buffer_pc, int f_len_i);
>>> -static int e1k_receive(char *f_buffer_pc, int f_len_i);
>>> +static int e1k_xmit(char *f_buffer_pc, unsigned f_len_i);
>>> +static int e1k_receive(char *f_buffer_pc, unsigned f_len_i);
>>>   /**
>>>    * Translate virtual to "physical" address, ie. an address
>>> @@ -549,11 +549,11 @@ e1k_mac_init(uint8_t *f_mac_pu08)
>>>    * e1k_receive
>>>    */
>>>   static int
>>> -e1k_receive(char *f_buffer_pc, int f_len_i)
>>> +e1k_receive(char *f_buffer_pc, unsigned f_len_i)
>>>   {
>>>       uint32_t    l_rdh_u32 = e1k_rd32(RDH);    // this includes needed 
>>> dummy read
>>>       e1k_rx_desc_st    *rx;
>>> -    int        l_ret_i;
>>> +    unsigned    l_ret_i;
>>>       #ifdef E1K_DEBUG
>>>       #ifdef E1K_SHOW_RCV_DATA
>>> @@ -589,11 +589,11 @@ e1k_receive(char *f_buffer_pc, int f_len_i)
>>>        * copy the data
>>>        */
>>>       memcpy((uint8_t *) f_buffer_pc, dma2virt(bswap_64(rx->m_buffer_u64)),
>>> -        (size_t) l_ret_i);
>>> +        (size_t) MIN(l_ret_i, f_len_i));
>>>       #ifdef E1K_DEBUG
>>>       #if defined(E1K_SHOW_RCV) || defined(E1K_SHOW_RCV_DATA)
>>> -    printf("e1k: %d bytes received\n", l_ret_i);
>>> +    printf("e1k: %d bytes received (max %d)\n", l_ret_i, f_len_i);
>>>       #endif
>>>       #ifdef E1K_SHOW_RCV_DATA
>>> @@ -631,7 +631,7 @@ e1k_receive(char *f_buffer_pc, int f_len_i)
>>>   }
>>>   static int
>>> -e1k_xmit(char *f_buffer_pc, int f_len_i)
>>> +e1k_xmit(char *f_buffer_pc, unsigned f_len_i)
>>>   {
>>>       uint32_t    l_tdh_u32 = e1k_rd32(TDH);
>>>       uint32_t    l_tdt_u32 = e1k_rd32(TDT);
>>>
>>
>