linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [net-next] sfc: avoid an unused-variable 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8e7598b2-3301-1af4-8c2f-b40cdc5166a3@solarflare.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 May 2020 01:30:03 +0100
From:   Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...hat.com>, <arnd@...db.de>
CC:     <linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com>, <mhabets@...arflare.com>,
        <kuba@...nel.org>, <amaftei@...arflare.com>,
        <tzhao@...arflare.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [net-next] sfc: avoid an unused-variable warning

On 28/05/2020 20:49, David Miller wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 15:41:06 +0200
>
>> 'nic_data' is no longer used outside of the #ifdef block
>> in efx_ef10_set_mac_address:
>>
>> drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ef10.c:3231:28: error: unused variable 'nic_data' [-Werror,-Wunused-variable]
>>         struct efx_ef10_nic_data *nic_data = efx->nic_data;
>>
>> Move the variable into a local scope.
>>
>> Fixes: dfcabb078847 ("sfc: move vport_id to struct efx_nic")
>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> Applid, thanks.
Sorry I didn't see the original patch (I think it disappeared
 into a mail outage).  Fix is good, but I think we can improve
 the code further by moving the declaration down another block,
 into the 'if (rc == -EPERM)', at which point it is no longer
 shadowed by the other nic_data declaration in the
 'else if (!rc)' block.
Alternatively, we could rename the latter to 'pf_nic_data' or
 something.  Any opinions/preferences on which way to go?  We
 could even do both...
When I make up my mind I'll spin an incremental patch.

-ed