Xen devel - Jan 2011 - [PATCH]: minios: don''t retrieve the address of void variable

Apparently this is verboten and gcc-4.5 doesn''t like it.

Signed-off-by: Gianni Tedesco <gianni.tedesco@citrix.com>

diff -r c55b93f3f8cf extras/mini-os/arch/x86/mm.c
--- a/extras/mini-os/arch/x86/mm.c	Fri Jan 07 15:27:30 2011 +0000
+++ b/extras/mini-os/arch/x86/mm.c	Fri Jan 07 17:04:48 2011 +0000
@@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ static void build_pagetable(unsigned lon
 /*
  * Mark portion of the address space read only.
  */
-extern void shared_info;
+extern struct void_opaque_stuff shared_info;
 static void set_readonly(void *text, void *etext)
 {
     unsigned long start_address 


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Gianni Tedesco, le Fri 07 Jan 2011 17:08:59 +0000, a écrit
:
> Apparently this is verboten and gcc-4.5 doesn''t like it.
Damn! I''d say use the struct shared_info instead, since that''s
what it
is.

Samuel

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 17:16 +0000, Samuel Thibault
wrote:
> Gianni Tedesco, le Fri 07 Jan 2011 17:08:59 +0000, a écrit :
> > Apparently this is verboten and gcc-4.5 doesn''t like it.
> 
> Damn! I''d say use the struct shared_info instead, since
that''s what it
> is.
Fair enough, I was just racing through trying to get it to build so
didn''t have time to stop and smell the roses :)

Thanks for the incredibly prompt review of these by the way.

Gianni

--

diff -r c55b93f3f8cf extras/mini-os/arch/x86/mm.c
--- a/extras/mini-os/arch/x86/mm.c      Fri Jan 07 15:27:30 2011 +0000
+++ b/extras/mini-os/arch/x86/mm.c      Fri Jan 07 17:04:48 2011 +0000
@@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ static void build_pagetable(unsigned lon
 /*
  * Mark portion of the address space read only.
  */
-extern void shared_info;
+extern struct shared_info shared_info;
 static void set_readonly(void *text, void *etext)
 {
     unsigned long start_address 


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Gianni Tedesco, le Fri 07 Jan 2011 17:25:33 +0000, a écrit
:
> On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 17:16 +0000, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Gianni Tedesco, le Fri 07 Jan 2011 17:08:59 +0000, a écrit :
> > > Apparently this is verboten and gcc-4.5 doesn''t like it.
> > 
> > Damn! I''d say use the struct shared_info instead, since
that''s what it
> > is.
> 
> Fair enough, I was just racing through trying to get it to build so
> didn''t have time to stop and smell the roses :)
> 
> Thanks for the incredibly prompt review of these by the way.
> 
> Gianni
Missing your Signed-off :)

Signed-off-by: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org>
> --
> 
> diff -r c55b93f3f8cf extras/mini-os/arch/x86/mm.c
> --- a/extras/mini-os/arch/x86/mm.c      Fri Jan 07 15:27:30 2011 +0000
> +++ b/extras/mini-os/arch/x86/mm.c      Fri Jan 07 17:04:48 2011 +0000
> @@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ static void build_pagetable(unsigned lon
>  /*
>   * Mark portion of the address space read only.
>   */
> -extern void shared_info;
> +extern struct shared_info shared_info;
>  static void set_readonly(void *text, void *etext)
>  {
>      unsigned long start_address > 
> 
-- 
Samuel
 >       ±z¬O§_¸g±`¬°¦p¦ó©Ý®i¦æ¾PºÞ¹D¶Ë¸£µ¬?
 > ¥Zµn³ø¯È,Âø»x¼s§i©Î¶l±H¢Ò¢Û (Direct Mail)¬O§_¤w¸gµLªk¹F¦¨±z¹w´Áªº¼s§i®ÄªG?
 Je vous invite a consulter dans un premier temps le french-Howto.
 -+- JCD in Guide du linuxien pervers - "Bien configurer la lisibilité de
fcolm"

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Samuel Thibault writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]: minios: don''t
retrieve the address of void variable"):
> Gianni Tedesco, le Fri 07 Jan 2011 17:25:33 +0000, a écrit :
> > Gianni
> 
> Missing your Signed-off :)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org>
I just also wanted to make a point about "Signed-off-by".

When you write
  Signed-off-by: me
you are certifying that you personally know that the copyright status
is good.  See the Developer''s Certificate of Origin 1.1, below.

I don''t see how you, Samuel, can certify that for a patch written by
Gianni.  So, while I appreciate that you were trying to be helpful,
I think you should not have signed it off.

One of Gianni''s colleagues who has suitable responsibilities at his
employer could sign off Gianni''s patch.  In this case that includes
me.  So in fact I will be applying this patch in just a moment.

Also, if we go by FSF guidance very small patches (<10 lines) don''t
constitute a copyright-relevant contribution if it''s just a one-off so
we will sometimes take very small un-signed-off patches but only once
per contributor.

Thanks,
Ian.
>From Documentation/SubmittingPatches in the Linux kernel tree:
       Developer''s Certificate of Origin 1.1

       By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:

       (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
           have the right to submit it under the open source license
           indicated in the file; or

       (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
           of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
           license and I have the right under that license to submit that
           work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
           by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
           permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
           in the file; or

       (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
           person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
           it.

       (d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
           are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
           personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
           maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
           this project or the open source license(s) involved.

-- 

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Ian Jackson, le Tue 11 Jan 2011 16:29:07 +0000, a écrit
:
> When you write
>   Signed-off-by: me
> you are certifying that you personally know that the copyright status
> is good.
Mmm, that seems to have been clarified indeed. In the past I had mostly
understood

The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the
development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch''s delivery
path.

And my signed-off-by was mostly to express that I have completely
checked the patch and give my formal approval on it for inclusion. My
former acked-by, as expressed: in SubmittingPatches: “is not as
formal as Signed-off-by:.  It is a record that the acker has at least
reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. [...] Acked-by: does
not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch.”, i.e. it
looked good to me without giving so formal approval.
> See the Developer''s Certificate of Origin 1.1, below.
> 
> I don''t see how you, Samuel, can certify that for a patch written
by
> Gianni.
Now that it''s clearly stated in SubmittingPatches, I sure agree.

Samuel

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Samuel Thibault writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]: minios: don''t
retrieve the address of void variable"):
> And my signed-off-by was mostly to express that I have completely
> checked the patch and give my formal approval on it for inclusion. My
> former acked-by, as expressed: in SubmittingPatches: üis not as
> formal as Signed-off-by:.  It is a record that the acker has at least
> reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. [...] Acked-by: does
> not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch.ý, i.e. it
> looked good to me without giving so formal approval.
Yes, I think if you meant "I like this patch and think it should be
committed" then Acked-by is correct.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Ian Jackson, le Tue 11 Jan 2011 16:43:55 +0000, a écrit
:
> Samuel Thibault writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]: minios:
don''t retrieve the address of void variable"):
> > And my signed-off-by was mostly to express that I have completely
> > checked the patch and give my formal approval on it for inclusion. My
> > former acked-by, as expressed: in SubmittingPatches: üis not as
> > formal as Signed-off-by:.  It is a record that the acker has at least
> > reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. [...] Acked-by: does
> > not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch.ý, i.e.
it
> > looked good to me without giving so formal approval.
> 
> Yes, I think if you meant "I like this patch and think it should be
> committed" then Acked-by is correct.
Well, in Linux Signed-off-by is also used in that case, e.g. when Andrew
Morton applies a patch to his tree (he actually almost never uses
Acked-by: 33 overs 30164 in my checkout, I doubt he has acually worked
on all these).

Samuel

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Ian Jackson, le Tue 11 Jan 2011 16:43:55 +0000, a écrit :
> > Samuel Thibault writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]: minios:
don''t retrieve the address of void variable"):
> > > And my signed-off-by was mostly to express that I have completely
> > > checked the patch and give my formal approval on it for
inclusion. My
> > > former acked-by, as expressed: in SubmittingPatches: üis not as
> > > formal as Signed-off-by:.  It is a record that the acker has at
least
> > > reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. [...] Acked-by:
does
> > > not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch.ý,
i.e. it
> > > looked good to me without giving so formal approval.
> > 
> > Yes, I think if you meant "I like this patch and think it should
be
> > committed" then Acked-by is correct.
> 
> Well, in Linux Signed-off-by is also used in that case, e.g. when Andrew
> Morton applies a patch to his tree (he actually almost never uses
> Acked-by: 33 overs 30164 in my checkout, I doubt he has acually worked
> on all these).
Linux maintainers add their Signed-off-by every time they apply a patch
by hand or make a tiny change to a commit.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 17:01 +0000, Samuel Thibault
wrote:
> Ian Jackson, le Tue 11 Jan 2011 16:43:55 +0000, a écrit :
> > Samuel Thibault writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]: minios:
don''t retrieve the address of void variable"):
> > > And my signed-off-by was mostly to express that I have completely
> > > checked the patch and give my formal approval on it for
inclusion. My
> > > former acked-by, as expressed: in SubmittingPatches: üis not as
> > > formal as Signed-off-by:.  It is a record that the acker has at
least
> > > reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. [...] Acked-by:
does
> > > not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch.ý,
i.e. it
> > > looked good to me without giving so formal approval.
> > 
> > Yes, I think if you meant "I like this patch and think it should
be
> > committed" then Acked-by is correct.
> 
> Well, in Linux Signed-off-by is also used in that case, e.g. when Andrew
> Morton applies a patch to his tree (he actually almost never uses
> Acked-by: 33 overs 30164 in my checkout, I doubt he has acually worked
> on all these).
That''s the 

       (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
           person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
           it.

case in the DCO, it''s intend to track chain of submission via
maintainers and similar situations. AIUI the subtle distinction is
whether you are taking responsibility for forwarding on someone else''s
work or are just commenting on it as it goes past.

Ian.
> 
> Samuel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel