[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100820113125.6d7b498f@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:31:25 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
michal.simek@...alogix.com, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Manuel Lauss <manuel.lauss@...glemail.com>,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] serial: 8250: Initialize pointer to irq_info
> > Use a newer compiler - modern ones get this right.
>
> : static void serial_unlink_irq_chain(struct uart_8250_port *up)
> : {
> : struct irq_info *i;
> : struct hlist_node *n;
> : struct hlist_head *h;
> :
> : mutex_lock(&hash_mutex);
> :
> : h = &irq_lists[up->port.irq % NR_IRQ_HASH];
> :
> : hlist_for_each(n, h) {
> : i = hlist_entry(n, struct irq_info, node);
> : if (i->irq == up->port.irq)
> : break;
> : }
> :
> : BUG_ON(n == NULL);
> : BUG_ON(i->head == NULL);
>
> How can any compiler possibly determine that the hlist_for_each() is
> never executed zero times?
We had this argument was it two years ago ?
Modern gcc is capable of at least working out it can't work it out and
doesn't emit a spurious warning.
--
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