[PATCH] draft patch to make usr.bin/kdump WARNS?= 6 clean

[Garrett Cooper]

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Garrett Cooper <yanegomi at gmail.com> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi at gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, May 2, 2011 at 9:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] draft patch to make usr.bin/kdump WARNS?= 6 clean
> To: Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar at gmail.com>
>
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Garrett Cooper <yanegomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>    I wanted to do something different this weekend, and I picked
>>> usr.bin/kdump as a likely 'victim' for converting from WARNS?= 0 to
>>> WARNS?= 6. I'm curious as to whether or not this is on the right
>>> track, but here's the reasoning I used:
>>>
>>> 1. Conditionally include diskmbr.h or diskpc98.h based on whether or
>>> not an architecture was non-pc98 or pc98 to avoid duplicate
>>> definitions, because the beforementioned headers are mutually
>>> exclusive.
>>> 2. Move the sockfamilyname declaration to kdump_subr.h as it's used in
>>> the generated ioctl.c file.
>>> 3. Fix a signed vs unsigned comparison with a simple cast because the
>>> size_t value will be sufficiently small that it can be converted to a
>>> signed comparison.
>>> 4. Fix a cast assignment type source//dest value alignment issue on
>>> ia64 assigning a struct sockaddr value to either struct sockaddr_in or
>>> struct sockaddr_in6 by using calloc and memcpy.
>>> 5. Fix structure alignment issues on arm by marking some structures as __packed.
>>> 6. Fix a shadowed declaration for flags by renaming a locally scoped
>>> variable to _flags; add appropriate type to field.
>>> 7. Remove unused argument to ktruser_malloc.
>>> 8. Add missing declarations for ktruser_malloc and ktruser_rtld.
>>>
>>>    I've run some basic tests and things seem sane (in particular
>>> ktrace'ing ktrace :)... ktrace'ing 'ssh ::1' and ktrace'ing 'ssh
>>> localhost', but I was wondering if there was anything I was missing or
>>> if someone else who ran arm or ia64 could test this patch out for me.
>>>    I've run make universe on amd64, i386, ia64, mips, and pc98, and
>>> things seem sane, but I can't play around with those machines to
>>> determine whether or not they're functional at runtime with the above
>>> changes.
>>> Thanks!
>>> -Garrett
>>>
>> I do not see any patch, either inline or attached.
>>
>>  - Arnaud
>>
>>> PS Oh yeah... no commit bit means that I can't commit this either, but
>>> I was curious if my approach was correct before getting to that step
>>> :).
>
> Yeah... I'm stupid for not attaching it. Need to get more sleep.

Note to self: should be freeing socket structures after use, and I
should apply similar logic to the rest of the socket inspection code.
I'll attach another version after I do some more testing.
Thanks!
-Garrett