Re: [kbuild] [dhowells-fs:afs-next 25/31] fs/afs/dir.c:1392 afs_unlink() error: we previously assumed 'vnode' could be null (see line 1375)
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 01:15:18PM +0100, David Howells wrote: > How about the attached patch? > Pretty sure that's correct, yeah. regards, dan carpenter ___ kbuild mailing list kbuild@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/kbuild
Re: [kbuild] [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Pull network and Patch Acceptance Consistency
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:53:51AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 10:31:15AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Also, usually, the bots don't build with W=1, as, on most subsystems, > > this cause lots of warnings[1]. > > > > [1] On media, we have zero warnings with W=1. > > > > We could ask the kbuild devs if they would consider making W=1 a per > tree option. thanks for the suggestion, we can consider this, at least for specific repos. > > regards, > dan carpenter > > ___ > kbuild mailing list > kbuild@lists.01.org > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/kbuild ___ kbuild mailing list kbuild@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/kbuild
Re: [kbuild] [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Pull network and Patch Acceptance Consistency
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 10:31:15AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Also, usually, the bots don't build with W=1, as, on most subsystems, > this cause lots of warnings[1]. > > [1] On media, we have zero warnings with W=1. > We could ask the kbuild devs if they would consider making W=1 a per tree option. regards, dan carpenter ___ kbuild mailing list kbuild@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/kbuild
Re: [kbuild] [dhowells-fs:afs-next 25/31] fs/afs/dir.c:1392 afs_unlink() error: we previously assumed 'vnode' could be null (see line 1375)
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 09:55:48PM +0100, David Howells wrote: > Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > New smatch warnings: > > fs/afs/dir.c:1392 afs_unlink() error: we previously assumed 'vnode' could > > be null (see line 1375) > > Hmmm... is it actually possible for inode->i_op->unlink() to be entered with a > dentry that doesn't point to an inode? > Nope. It's not. Smatch is supposed to not generate a warning in situations like this but here it gets confused by some code in reiserfs. I have a couple ideas how to fix this eventually but those are long term projects. regards, dan carpenter ___ kbuild mailing list kbuild@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/kbuild
