Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for August 7 (SGI UV)

From: Randy Dunlap <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:07:50 -0700

(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/