linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] EDAC, mpc85xx: fix build warning

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:	Tue, 2 Feb 2016 20:25:54 +0530
From:	Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
To:	Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>
Cc:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Johannes Thumshirn <morbidrsa@...il.com>,
	Doug Thompson <dougthompson@...ssion.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] EDAC, mpc85xx: fix build warning

On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 03:48:03PM +0100, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 06:38:01AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 12:15:45PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:30:21PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > > > We were getting build warning about:
> > > > drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c:1247:6: warning: unused variable 'pvr'
> > > > 
> > > > pvr is only used if CONFIG_FSL_SOC_BOOKE was defined. Declare the
> > > > variable as a local variable inside the #ifdef block.
> > > 
> > > What's wrong with doing the simpler thing:
> > > 
> > > ---
> > > diff --git a/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c b/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c
> > > index b7139c160baf..f756b6215228 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c
> > > @@ -1244,7 +1244,6 @@ static struct platform_driver * const drivers[] = {
> > >  static int __init mpc85xx_mc_init(void)
> > >  {
> > >  	int res = 0;
> > > -	u32 pvr = 0;
> > >  
> > Or with just adding __maybe_unused here.
> 
> I'd favour this one as well.

oops... i just sent the v2 while removing pvr. Which is the better way
then?
Personally, I donot like __maybe_unused, it is telling gcc that this
variable is unused so donot give any warning for it. But in reality it
is being used in some cases.

regards
sudip