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, 14 Jun 2010 22:53:15 +0200
From:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To:	"Justin P. Mattock" <justinmattock@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org, clemens@...isch.de,
	debora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8]i2c:i2c_core Fix warning: variable 'dummy' set but
 not used

Hi Justin,

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:26:46 -0700, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
> could be a right solution, could be wrong
> here is the warning:
>   CC      drivers/i2c/i2c-core.o
> drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c: In function 'i2c_register_adapter':
> drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c:757:15: warning: variable 'dummy' set but not used
>  
>  Signed-off-by: Justin P. Mattock <justinmattock@...il.com>
> 
> ---
>  drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c |    2 ++
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
> index 1cca263..79c6c26 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
> @@ -794,6 +794,8 @@ static int i2c_register_adapter(struct i2c_adapter *adap)
>  	mutex_lock(&core_lock);
>  	dummy = bus_for_each_drv(&i2c_bus_type, NULL, adap,
>  				 __process_new_adapter);
> +	if(!dummy)
> +		dummy = 0;

One word: scripts/checkpatch.pl

In other news, the above is just plain wrong. First we force people to
read the result of bus_for_each_drv() and then when they do and don't
need the value, gcc complains, so we add one more layer of useless
code, which developers and possibly tools will later wonder and
complain about? I can easily imagine that a static code analyzer would
spot the above code as being a potential bug.

Let's stop this madness now please.

Either __must_check goes away from bus_for_each_drv() and from every
other function which raises this problem, or we must disable that new
type of warning gcc 4.6.0 generates. Depends which warnings we value
more, as we can't sanely have both.

>  	mutex_unlock(&core_lock);
>  
>  	return 0;


-- 
Jean Delvare
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ