linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] stop gcc warning about uninitialized 'dev' in ata_scsi_scan

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]

Message-ID: <20081016212122.GA18274@ldl.fc.hp.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:21:22 -0600
From:	Alex Chiang <achiang@...com>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, jeff@...hat.com,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] stop gcc warning about uninitialized 'dev' in
	ata_scsi_scan_host

* Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 09:40:42PM -0600, Alex Chiang wrote:
> > * Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>:
> > > Alex Chiang wrote:
> > > > Shuts up gcc-3.4.5-glibc-2.3.6 when it complains of:
> > > > 
> > > > drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c: In function `ata_scsi_scan_host':
> > > > drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c:3225: warning: 'dev' might be used
> > > > uninitialized in this function
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Chiang <achiang@...com>
> > > 
> > > Nacked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> > > 
> > > Some gcc versions complain about sata_via, others complain
> > > about something else.  Some versions complain about some
> > > iterator usages while not complaining about others, but none of
> > > those complaints is actually wrong or dangerous.  I don't think
> > > adding = NULL whenever some version of gcc complains is the
> > > right approach.
> > 
> > Hm, ok.
> > 
> > I guess we don't want to sprinkle these around all over the place
> > just to solve cosmetic issues, which makes sense, but is there
> > some other approach we could take instead? Any suggestions? Or
> > just live with it?
> 
> We have an annotation for these kinds of warnings in the kernel.

What is the annotation?

> But we'll never get a warning-free compilation with all seven (sic) 
> supported gcc release series.
> 
> A warning-free compilation with gcc 4.3 is worth some efforts, but 
> cluttering our code to fix bogus warnings with older gcc versions
> is not a good thing.

Ok, I already agree with this point.

Thanks.

/ac

--
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/