linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] KVM: x86: remove set but not used variable 'called'

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]

Message-ID: <87a78sgfqj.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Nov 2019 14:25:40 +0100
From:   Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     Mao Wenan <maowenan@...wei.com>, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        rkrcmar@...hat.com, sean.j.christopherson@...el.com,
        wanpengli@...cent.com, jmattson@...gle.com, joro@...tes.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] KVM: x86: remove set but not used variable 'called'

Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> writes:

> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 01:28:32PM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 12:58:54PM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> >> Mao Wenan <maowenan@...wei.com> writes:
>> >> 
>> >> > Fixes gcc '-Wunused-but-set-variable' warning:
>> >> >
>> >> > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c: In function kvm_make_scan_ioapic_request_mask:
>> >> > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c:7911:7: warning: variable called set but not
>> >> > used [-Wunused-but-set-variable]
>> >> >
>> >> > It is not used since commit 7ee30bc132c6 ("KVM: x86: deliver KVM
>> >> > IOAPIC scan request to target vCPUs")
>> >> 
>> >> Better expressed as 
>> >> 
>> >> Fixes: 7ee30bc132c6 ("KVM: x86: deliver KVM IOAPIC scan request to target vCPUs")
>> >> 
>> >
>> > There is sort of a debate about this whether the Fixes tag should be
>> > used if it's only a cleanup.
>> >
>> 
>> I have to admit I'm involved in doing backporting sometimes and I really
>> appreciate Fixes: tags. Just so you know on which side of the debate I
>> am :-)
>
> But we're not going to backport this hopefully?
>

In case we're speaking about stable@ kernels, 7ee30bc132c6 doesn't look
like a good candidate (to me) but who knows, it may get pulled in
because of some code dependency or some other 'autosel magic'. And
that's when 'Fixes:' tags become handy.

-- 
Vitaly