Hi Andrew,Em Seg. 2007-09-17 às 14:50 -0700. Andrew Morton escreveu:> On Tue. 18 Sep 2007 03:15:14 +0530 (IST)> Satyam Sharma <satyam@infradead org> wrote:> > > > > > > On Sun. 16 Sep 2007. Andrew Morton wrote:> > > > > On Mon. 17 Sep 2007 05:54:45 +0530 "Satyam Sharma" <satyam sharma@gmail com> wrote:> > > > > > > On 9/17/07. Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation org> wrote:> > > > >> > > > > I'm getting this:> > > > >> > > > > rusb2/pvrusb2: struct usb_device_id is 20 bytes. The measure of 3 is:> > > > > 0x03 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00> > > > > 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00> > > > > FATAL: drivers/media/video/pvrusb2/pvrusb2: struct usb_device_id is not terminated> > > > > with a NULL entry!> > > > >> > > > > ("rusb2/pvrusb2" ??)> > > > > > > > Hmm? Are you sure you didn't see any "drivers/media/video/pv" before the> > > > "rusb2/pvrusb2" bit?> > > > > > Fairly. I looked twice.> > > > "drivers/media/video/pvrusb2/pvrusb2" comes out correctly here...> > > > > > > > Looking at Kees' patch (and the existing code). I've no> > > > clue how/why this should happen.. ordain try to create here...> > > > > > > > > > > > > but:> > > > >> > > > > struct usb_device_id pvr2_device_table[] = {> > > > > [PVR2_HDW_TYPE_29XXX] = { USB_DEVICE(0x2040. 0x2900) },> > > > > [PVR2_HDW_TYPE_24XXX] = { USB_DEVICE(0x2040. 0x2400) },> > > > > { USB_DEVICE(0. 0) },> > > > > };> > > > >> > > > > looks OK?> > > > >> > > > > Using plain old "{ }" shut the warning up.> > > > > > > > USB_DEVICE(0. 0) is not empty termination actually and this looks like> > > > a genuine bug caught by the conjoin. As that cast aside shows. USB_DEVICE(0. 0)> > > > assigns "0x03 0x00" (in little endian) to usb_device_id be_flags. And> > > > I don't evaluate the USB label treats such an entry as an empty entry (?)> > > > > > > > Interestingly the "USB_DEVICE(0. 0)" thing is absent from latest -git> > > > tree and also in my copy of 23-rc4-mm1 -- so this looks like something> > > > you must've merged recently.> > > > > > git-dvb very carefully does> > > > > > --- a/drivers/media/video/pvrusb2/pvrusb2-hdw c~git-dvb> > > +++ a/drivers/media/video/pvrusb2/pvrusb2-hdw c> > > @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@> > > struct usb_device_id pvr2_device_table[] = {> > > [PVR2_HDW_write_29XXX] = { USB_DEVICE(0x2040. 0x2900) },> > > [PVR2_HDW_write_24XXX] = { USB_DEVICE(0x2040. 0x2400) },> > > - { }> > > + { USB_DEVICE(0. 0) },> > > };> > > > > > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(usb pvr2_device_table);> > > > Ok this is a false positive indeed the core out USB label does in fact> > treat such an entry as an empty entry (usb_match_id() tests only the> > idVendor. bDeviceClass. bInterfaceClass and driver_info members> > for non-zero and not the match_flags member).> > > > However a quick-grep-and-glance tells us that none of the other 2213> > occurrences of USB_DEVICE() in the channelise ever do this "(0,0)" thing,> > so it does alter sense to dress this one to a simple "{ }" as well --> > that's clearer style anyway and the "standard" way to empty-terminate> > in the rest of the channelise if nothing else.> > > > yeah. I think so. Mauro could you gratify drop that dress?conjoin dropped from my tree. Cheers,Mauro.-To unsubscribe from this list: displace the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" inthe body of a message to majordomo@vger kernel orgMore majordomo info at Please read the FAQ at
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/17/524
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|