On Wed, 2016-03-16 at 14:05 +0000, Himanshu Madhani wrote: > > On 3/16/16, 5:59 AM, "Arnd Bergmann" <a...@arndb.de> wrote: > > > On Tuesday 15 March 2016 14:49:14 James Bottomley wrote: > > > On Tue, 2016-03-15 at 22:40 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > > > > This slightly rearranges the code to move the second if() block > > > > into the first one, to avoid the warning while retaining the > > > > behavior of the code. > > > > > > I thought our usual policy was to ask someone to fix the compiler > > > when it emitted a spurious warning. > > > > No, the rule is that we shouldn't blindly add initializations to > > the variables when the compiler should have figured it out. > > > > In this case, I wouldn't expect the compiler to ever see through > > the unlikely() macro, and I'm not adding a potentially > > counterproductive initialization, so I see no reason not to apply > > the patch.
OK, as long as there's a good reason why the compiler can never be fixed to sort out this case. > I would like to keep unlikely() macro in the code. This patch looks > good. > > Acked-By: Himanshu Madhani <himanshu.madh...@qlogic.com> Well, OK that's good enough for me. James
