Re: [util-linux PATCH v2] Support hwclock for GNU Hurd

[Samuel Thibault]

Zhaoming Luo, le lun. 09 déc. 2024 08:02:47 +0800, a ecrit:
> On 12/9/24 7:54 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Zhaoming Luo, le lun. 09 déc. 2024 07:51:38 +0800, a ecrit:
> > > On 12/9/24 12:43 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > Hi, thanks for the review.
> > > > 
> > > > Zhaoming Luo, le ven. 06 déc. 2024 11:03:26 +0800, a ecrit:
> > > > > diff --git a/sys-utils/hwclock-cmos.c b/sys-utils/hwclock-cmos.c
> > > > > index 7e5eecc..cc672cb 100644
> > > > > --- a/sys-utils/hwclock-cmos.c
> > > > > +++ b/sys-utils/hwclock-cmos.c
> > > > > @@ -352,7 +352,9 @@ static int i386_iopl(const int level)
> > > > >    # else
> > > > >    static int i386_iopl(const int level __attribute__ ((__unused__)))
> > > > >    {
> > > > > +     #ifndef __gnu_hurd__
> > > > >       extern int ioperm(unsigned long from, unsigned long num, int 
> > > > > turn_on);
> > > > > +     #endif
> > > > >       return ioperm(clock_ctl_addr, 2, 1);
> > > > >    }
> > > > >    # endif
> > > > 
> > > > This seems unrelated, do you get an issue without it?
> > > 
> > > Got the following errors without it:
> > > ```
> > > sys-utils/hwclock-cmos.c: In function 'i386_iopl':
> > > sys-utils/hwclock-cmos.c:355:20: warning: nested extern declaration of
> > > 'ioperm' [-Wnested-externs]
> > >    355 |         extern int ioperm(unsigned long from, unsigned long num, 
> > > int
> > > turn_on);
> > >        |                    ^~~~~~
> > > sys-utils/hwclock-cmos.c:355:20: warning: redundant redeclaration of
> > > 'ioperm' [-Wredundant-decls]
> > > In file included from sys-utils/hwclock-cmos.c:68:
> > > /usr/include/i386-gnu/sys/io.h:29:12: note: previous declaration of 
> > > 'ioperm'
> > > with type 'int(long unsigned int,  long unsigned int,  int)'
> > >     29 | extern int ioperm (unsigned long int __from, unsigned long int
> > > __num,
> > >        |            ^~~~~~
> > >    CCLD     hwclock
> > > ```
> > 
> > Ok. Let's see what upstream thinks about it, they'll probably want to
> > just get rid of the declaration entirely.
> 
> Should I send the warning above to the util-linux mail list?

You can send it as a separate patch, yes.

Samuel