[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1458078554.2375.97.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 14:49:14 -0700
From: James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, qla2xxx-upstream@...gic.com,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: Nicholas Bellinger <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
Himanshu Madhani <himanshu.madhani@...gic.com>,
Quinn Tran <quinn.tran@...gic.com>,
Alexei Potashnik <alexei@...estorage.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>,
Swapnil Nagle <swapnil.nagle@...estorage.com>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] qla2xxx: avoid maybe_uninitialized warning
On Tue, 2016-03-15 at 22:40 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> The qlt_check_reserve_free_req() function produces an incorrect
> warning when CONFIG_PROFILE_ANNOTATED_BRANCHES is set:
>
> drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_target.c: In function
> 'qlt_check_reserve_free_req':
> drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_target.c:1887:3: error: 'cnt_in' may be used
> uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> ql_dbg(ql_dbg_io, vha, 0x305a,
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "qla_target(%d): There is no room in the request ring: vha
> ->req->ring_index=%d, vha->req->cnt=%d, req_cnt=%d Req-out=%d Req
> -in=%d Req-Length=%d\n",
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~
> vha->vp_idx, vha->req->ring_index,
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> vha->req->cnt, req_cnt, cnt, cnt_in, vha->req->length);
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_target.c:1887:3: error: 'cnt' may be used
> uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
>
> The problem is that gcc fails to track the state of the condition
> across an annotated branch.
>
> This slightly rearranges the code to move the second if() block
> into the first one, to avoid the warning while retaining the
> behavior of the code.
I thought our usual policy was to ask someone to fix the compiler when
it emitted a spurious warning.
James
Powered by blists - more mailing lists