On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 11:19:21PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> >But I don't want anyone else wasting their time on this. Should we cave
> >in and add the initialization here just to shut up gcc? Or would a
> >comment here help?
>
> Given what you said above, I don't see
Hi, matt
embarrassed :)
below resend it.
diff -dur linux/fs/nfsd/nfs4acl.c linux.new/fs/nfsd/nfs4acl.c
--- linux/fs/nfsd/nfs4acl.c 2007-05-29 12:28:29.0 +
+++ linux.new/fs/nfsd/nfs4acl.c 2007-05-29 16:32:26.0 +
@@ -183,8 +183,6 @@
summarize_posix_acl(struct posix_acl *
young dave wrote:
Hi,
Given what you said above, I don't see gcc, on its best day, will ever
know enough to validate that that variable is indeed always initialized.
So I would vote for silencing it on those grounds.
I agree too. How about this one:
diff -dur linux/fs/nfsd/nfs4acl.c linux.
Hi,
Given what you said above, I don't see gcc, on its best day, will ever
know enough to validate that that variable is indeed always initialized.
So I would vote for silencing it on those grounds.
I agree too. How about this one:
diff -dur linux/fs/nfsd/nfs4acl.c linux.new/fs/nfsd/nfs4acl
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 06:34:42AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Unlike many of the bogus warnings spewed by gcc, this one actually
complains about a real bug:
No, the calls to posix_acl_valid() in nfs4_acl_posix_to_nfsv4() ensure
that the passed-in acl has ACL_USER_OBJ, ACL
On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 06:34:42AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> Unlike many of the bogus warnings spewed by gcc, this one actually
> complains about a real bug:
No, the calls to posix_acl_valid() in nfs4_acl_posix_to_nfsv4() ensure
that the passed-in acl has ACL_USER_OBJ, ACL_GROUP_OBJ, and ACL_
6 matches
Mail list logo
