summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/arch/arm/mach-s5pv210/mach-smdkv210.c
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorJesper Juhl <jj@chaosbits.net>2011-12-18 01:05:31 +0100
committerIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>2011-12-18 09:14:31 +0100
commit1affc46cffad9f2bc7c9ffec85726446903a58f9 (patch)
tree9575e5bb55445b034db36202c40fbec7f0ea4611 /arch/arm/mach-s5pv210/mach-smdkv210.c
parent2ac13462b6d242684996e88a07fbed6dec6af622 (diff)
x86: Use "do { } while(0)" for empty lock_cmos()/unlock_cmos() macros
gcc noticed (when using -Wempty-body) that our use of lock_cmos() and unlock_cmos() in arch/x86/include/asm/mach_traps.h is potentially problematic : arch/x86/include/asm/mach_traps.h:32:15: warning: suggest braces around empty body in an ¡else¢ statement [-Wempty-body] arch/x86/include/asm/mach_traps.h:40:16: warning: suggest braces around empty body in an ¡else¢ statement [-Wempty-body] Let's just use the standard 'do {} while (0)' solution. That shuts up gcc and also prevents future problems if the macros should end up being used in a similar situation elsewhere. Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <jj@chaosbits.net> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.LNX.2.00.1112180103130.21784@swampdragon.chaosbits.net Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Diffstat (limited to 'arch/arm/mach-s5pv210/mach-smdkv210.c')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions