Re: [PATCH net 9/9] net: qed: fix "maybe uninitialized" warning

2020-06-23 Thread Alexander Lobakin
From: Jakub Kicinski Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 14:44:37 -0700 > On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 14:14:13 +0300 Alexander Lobakin wrote: > > Variable 'abs_ppfid' in qed_dev.c:qed_llh_add_mac_filter() always gets > > printed, but is initialized only under 'ref_cnt == 1' condition. This > > results in: > > > > In

Re: [PATCH net 9/9] net: qed: fix "maybe uninitialized" warning

2020-06-22 Thread Jakub Kicinski
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 14:14:13 +0300 Alexander Lobakin wrote: > Variable 'abs_ppfid' in qed_dev.c:qed_llh_add_mac_filter() always gets > printed, but is initialized only under 'ref_cnt == 1' condition. This > results in: > > In file included from ./include/linux/kernel.h:15:0, > fro

Re: [PATCH net 9/9] virtio-net: XDP support for small buffers

2017-01-03 Thread Jason Wang
On 2017年01月04日 00:40, John Fastabend wrote: On 17-01-02 10:16 PM, Jason Wang wrote: On 2017年01月03日 06:43, John Fastabend wrote: On 16-12-23 06:37 AM, Jason Wang wrote: Commit f600b6905015 ("virtio_net: Add XDP support") leaves the case of small receive buffer untouched. This will confuse th

Re: [PATCH net 9/9] virtio-net: XDP support for small buffers

2017-01-03 Thread John Fastabend
On 17-01-02 10:16 PM, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2017年01月03日 06:43, John Fastabend wrote: >> On 16-12-23 06:37 AM, Jason Wang wrote: >>> Commit f600b6905015 ("virtio_net: Add XDP support") leaves the case of >>> small receive buffer untouched. This will confuse the user who want to >>> set XDP bu

Re: [PATCH net 9/9] virtio-net: XDP support for small buffers

2017-01-02 Thread Jason Wang
On 2017年01月03日 06:43, John Fastabend wrote: On 16-12-23 06:37 AM, Jason Wang wrote: Commit f600b6905015 ("virtio_net: Add XDP support") leaves the case of small receive buffer untouched. This will confuse the user who want to set XDP but use small buffers. Other than forbid XDP in small buffer

Re: [PATCH net 9/9] virtio-net: XDP support for small buffers

2017-01-02 Thread John Fastabend
On 16-12-23 06:37 AM, Jason Wang wrote: > Commit f600b6905015 ("virtio_net: Add XDP support") leaves the case of > small receive buffer untouched. This will confuse the user who want to > set XDP but use small buffers. Other than forbid XDP in small buffer > mode, let's make it work. XDP then can o

Re: [PATCH net 9/9] virtio-net: XDP support for small buffers

2016-12-23 Thread John Fastabend
On 16-12-23 06:37 AM, Jason Wang wrote: > Commit f600b6905015 ("virtio_net: Add XDP support") leaves the case of > small receive buffer untouched. This will confuse the user who want to > set XDP but use small buffers. Other than forbid XDP in small buffer > mode, let's make it work. XDP then can o

Re: [PATCH] net #9

2001-05-30 Thread Andrzej Krzysztofowicz
"Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:" > Andrzej Krzysztofowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >-static char name[4][IFNAMSIZ] = { "", "", "", "" }; > > >+static char name[4][IFNAMSIZ]; > > Ugh. Sure about that one? the variables have been pointers to zero, > now they're zero... I do not agree. A

Re: [PATCH] net #9

2001-05-30 Thread Jeff Garzik
"Henning P. Schmiedehausen" wrote: > > Andrzej Krzysztofowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >-static char name[4][IFNAMSIZ] = { "", "", "", "" }; > > >+static char name[4][IFNAMSIZ]; > > Ugh. Sure about that one? the variables have been pointers to zero, > now they're zero... No, the va

Re: [PATCH] net #9

2001-05-29 Thread Jean Tourrilhes
On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 10:13:02PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > *shrug* Well, if you want to go against the kernel standard that's fine > with me. I won't put Andrzej's changes to your drivers upstream. You > are going to continually see patches to clean that up, though, because > it makes the e

Re: [PATCH] net #9

2001-05-29 Thread Jean Tourrilhes
On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 09:47:19PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > This is ANSI C standard stuff. If a static object with a scalar type is > not explicitly initialized, it is initialized to zero by default. > > Sure we can get gcc to recognize that case, but why use gcc to work > around code that

Re: [PATCH] net #9

2001-05-29 Thread Jeff Garzik
Jean Tourrilhes wrote: > > On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 09:13:34PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > > This is standard kernel cleanup that makes the resulting image smaller. > > These patches have been going into all areas of the kernel for quite > > some time. > > This doesn't make it right.

Re: [PATCH] net #9

2001-05-29 Thread Jean Tourrilhes
On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 09:13:34PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > This is standard kernel cleanup that makes the resulting image smaller. > These patches have been going into all areas of the kernel for quite > some time. This doesn't make it right. Ok, while we are on the topic

Re: [PATCH] net #9

2001-05-29 Thread Jean Tourrilhes
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 02:48:24AM +0200, Andrzej Krzysztofowicz wrote: > > The following patch removes some zero initializers from statics > > Andrzej If I were you, I would fix gcc rather than making my code unreadable. I write source code in C rather than coding ASM in hex b