Re: [PATCH] btrfs: fix build warning
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:39:59AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Sudip Mukherjee >wrote: > > We were getting build warning about: > > fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:7021:34: warning: ‘used_bg’ may be used > > uninitialized in this function > > > > It is not a valid warning as used_bg is never used uninitilized since > > locked is initially false so we can never be in the section where > > 'used_bg' is used. But gcc is not able to understand that and we can > > initialize it while declaring to silence the warning. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee > > FWIW, I've posted an alternative patch that killed the silly locked variable > a while ago. > "[PATCH] Btrfs: Refactor btrfs_lock_cluster() to kill compiler warning" > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/22/96 The cleanup looks great, thanks, patch picked. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] btrfs: fix build warning
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Sudip Mukherjeewrote: > We were getting build warning about: > fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:7021:34: warning: ‘used_bg’ may be used > uninitialized in this function > > It is not a valid warning as used_bg is never used uninitilized since > locked is initially false so we can never be in the section where > 'used_bg' is used. But gcc is not able to understand that and we can > initialize it while declaring to silence the warning. > > Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee FWIW, I've posted an alternative patch that killed the silly locked variable a while ago. "[PATCH] Btrfs: Refactor btrfs_lock_cluster() to kill compiler warning" https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/22/96 > --- > fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c > index e2287c7..f24e4c3 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c > @@ -7018,7 +7018,7 @@ btrfs_lock_cluster(struct btrfs_block_group_cache > *block_group, >struct btrfs_free_cluster *cluster, >int delalloc) > { > - struct btrfs_block_group_cache *used_bg; > + struct btrfs_block_group_cache *used_bg = NULL; > bool locked = false; > again: > spin_lock(>refill_lock); > -- > 1.9.1 Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[PATCH] btrfs: fix build warning
We were getting build warning about: fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:7021:34: warning: ‘used_bg’ may be used uninitialized in this function It is not a valid warning as used_bg is never used uninitilized since locked is initially false so we can never be in the section where 'used_bg' is used. But gcc is not able to understand that and we can initialize it while declaring to silence the warning. Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee--- fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c index e2287c7..f24e4c3 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c @@ -7018,7 +7018,7 @@ btrfs_lock_cluster(struct btrfs_block_group_cache *block_group, struct btrfs_free_cluster *cluster, int delalloc) { - struct btrfs_block_group_cache *used_bg; + struct btrfs_block_group_cache *used_bg = NULL; bool locked = false; again: spin_lock(>refill_lock); -- 1.9.1 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html