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. I would like to keep unlikely() macro in the code. This patch looks good. Acked-By: Himanshu Madhani <himanshu.madh...@qlogic.com> > >Making it easier for the compiler to figure out what is going >on should also lead to slightly better object code. If you think >my patch makes it less readable, an alternative would be to remove >the 'unlikely', which also gets rid of the warning. > > Arnd
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
