linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] NVMe: silence GCC warning on 32 bit

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, 24 Mar 2014 16:57:46 +0100
From:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
To:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
	Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] NVMe: silence GCC warning on 32 bit

On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 16:49 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl> wrote:
> > And as this is now unlikely to be in time for v3.14, we might decide to
> > dig deeper. It won't be the first time that a rather small change (say,
> > converting a variable from signed to unsigned) turns out be enough to
> > make GCC understand the flow of the code.
> 
> Anything we can do with factoring out the "if (!first)" in both branches?

That was basically my approach in version one: drop "first" all
together. Worked great: the warning was gone. But Keith noted that I
also completely broke the logic of the code. So I decided, after some
further attempts, to take the easy way out and and initialize "bvprv" to
{ NULL }.


Paul Bolle

--
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/