On 06/14/2010 01:53 PM, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Justin, > > On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:26:46 -0700, Justin P. Mattock wrote: >> could be a right solution, could be wrong >> here is the warning: >> CC drivers/i2c/i2c-core.o >> drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c: In function 'i2c_register_adapter': >> drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c:757:15: warning: variable 'dummy' set but not used >> >> Signed-off-by: Justin P. Mattock<justinmattock at gmail.com> >> >> --- >> drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c | 2 ++ >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c >> index 1cca263..79c6c26 100644 >> --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c >> +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c >> @@ -794,6 +794,8 @@ static int i2c_register_adapter(struct i2c_adapter *adap) >> mutex_lock(&core_lock); >> dummy = bus_for_each_drv(&i2c_bus_type, NULL, adap, >> __process_new_adapter); >> + if(!dummy) >> + dummy = 0; > > One word: scripts/checkpatch.pl
it was this, and/or just take the code out (since I'm a newbie) > > In other news, the above is just plain wrong. First we force people to > read the result of bus_for_each_drv() and then when they do and don't > need the value, gcc complains, so we add one more layer of useless > code, which developers and possibly tools will later wonder and > complain about? I can easily imagine that a static code analyzer would > spot the above code as being a potential bug. > > Let's stop this madness now please. > your telling me!! I haven't even compiled all the way through the kernel yet.(lots of warnings) > Either __must_check goes away from bus_for_each_drv() and from every > other function which raises this problem, or we must disable that new > type of warning gcc 4.6.0 generates. Depends which warnings we value > more, as we can't sanely have both. > >> mutex_unlock(&core_lock); >> >> return 0; > > up to you guys.. best thing now is deciphering what and what not is an actual issue. Justin P. Mattock
