linux-kernel - Re: block/bsg.c

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:53:47 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: block/bsg.c

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:47:45 -0400 Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> wrote:

> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > The modern way of shutting up gcc is uninitialized_var().
> 
> 
> Should I convert my misc-2.6.git#gccbug repository over to this, and 
> push upstream?

Opinions differ (a bit) but personally I think the benefit of fixing the
warnings outweighs the risk that these suppressions will later hide a real
bug.

Certainly, using uninitialized_var() is better than open-coding "= 0" all
over the place.

Purists can add a config variable to centrally disable uninitialized_var()
if they want to check on the warnings.

> #gccbug branch is a set of places where I have verified that the 
> variable is indeed initialized, even though gcc complains it may not be.
> 

Do it!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/