linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the akpm-current tree

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 26 Aug 2017 01:23:41 +0000
From:   Changwei Ge <ge.changwei@....com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@...sity.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the akpm-current tree

Hi Andrew,


On 2017/8/26 5:24, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 08:15:30 +0000 Changwei Ge <ge.changwei@....com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> On 2017/8/24 15:42, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi Andrew, After merging the akpm-current tree, today's linux-next
>>> build (x86_64 allmodconfig) produced these warnings:
>>> fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c: In function 'dlm_free_dead_locks':
>>> fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c:2306:6: warning: unused variable 'i'
>>> [-Wunused-variable] int i; ^ fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c:2305:20:
>>> warning: unused variable 'queue' [-Wunused-variable] struct list_head
>>> *queue = NULL; ^ 
>> My patch never defines these two variables, it's strange that they are
>> defined within the patch you collected.
>> Could you please help to check if this patch comes from mail '[PATCH]
>> ocfs2: re-queue AST or BAST if sending is failed to improve the
>> reliability' sent on 7, August.
> Yes, I'm not at all sure how those lines got there.
>
> Problem is, the patch you sent was wordwrapped and had its tabs
> replaced with spaces.  So I had to do quite a lot of work on it to make
> it usable.  Evidently I somehow added those lines in the process.
>
> Please carefully check that
>
> http://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/ocfs2-re-queue-ast-or-bast-if-sending-is-failed-to-improve-the-reliability.patch
>
> plus
>
> --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c~ocfs2-re-queue-ast-or-bast-if-sending-is-failed-to-improve-the-reliability-fix
> +++ a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c
> @@ -2302,8 +2302,6 @@ static void dlm_free_dead_locks(struct d
>  	struct dlm_lock *lock, *next;
>  	unsigned int freed = 0;
>  	int reserved_tmp = 0;
> -	struct list_head *queue = NULL;
> -	int i;
>  
>  	/* this node is the lockres master:
>  	 * 1) remove any stale locks for the dead node
>
> produce the correct result.
>
> And please appropriately configure your email client for next time!
Sorry for the trouble my patch made, I will check my email client
configuration.

Thanks,
Changwei
>