[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20121119.184828.628106002307042971.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 18:48:28 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: paolo.valente@...more.it
Cc: jhs@...atatu.com, shemminger@...tta.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
rizzo@....unipi.it, fchecconi@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: QFQ Plus: fair-queueing service at DRR cost
From: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...more.it>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:48:33 +0100
> [This patch received positive feedback from Stephen Hemminger ("put in
> net-next"), but no further feedback or decision. So I am (re)sending
> an updated version of it. The only differences with respect to the
> previous version are the support for TSO/GSO (taken from QFQ), and a
> hopefully improved description.]
Can you rearrange the logic so that the compiler doesn't emit this
warning?
In file included from net/sched/sch_qfq.c:18:0:
net/sched/sch_qfq.c: In function ‘qfq_dequeue’:
include/net/sch_generic.h:480:15: warning: ‘skb’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
net/sched/sch_qfq.c:1007:18: note: ‘skb’ was declared here
You and I both know that SKB will be initialized at this point, but
the compiler can't see it clearly enough.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists