[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081016212244.GB18274@ldl.fc.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:22:44 -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.
Oh, is it this?
from linux/compiler-gcc3.h
#define uninitialized_var(x) x = x
/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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists