[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070427235409.c464455f.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 23:54:09 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: bbpetkov@...oo.de
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...source.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memory.c: remove warning from an uninitialized
spinlock. was: Re: 2.6.21-rc7-mm2
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 08:25:17 +0200 Borislav Petkov <bbpetkov@...oo.de> wrote:
> > __attribute__ __address_will_be_overwritten_so_don't_bother_warning_me__?
> >
> > /me going to read gcc docs...
>
> Sorry, no such thing in the docs to do
>
> spinlock_t __attribute__((__uninitialized__)) *ptl;
>
> in order to suppress warnings.
Bummer. Thanks for checking.
> But if function size is our concern here, even
> shorter would be:
>
> Index: linux-mm/mm/memory.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-mm.orig/mm/memory.c 2007-04-26 19:57:14.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-mm/mm/memory.c 2007-04-26 20:00:30.000000000 +0200
> @@ -1488,7 +1488,7 @@
> pte_t *pte;
> int err;
> struct page *pmd_page;
> - spinlock_t *ptl;
> + spinlock_t *ptl = 0;
>
> pte = (mm == &init_mm) ?
> pte_alloc_kernel(pmd, addr) :
hm, that'll have the same seven-byte cost as `= NULL;', won't 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists