netdev - Re: [PATCHv4 3/4] sparc64: Avoid irqsave/restore on vio.lock if in

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: <20141021223952.GA26724@oracle.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Oct 2014 18:39:52 -0400
From:	Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
To:	Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@...il.com>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	sparclinux <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 3/4] sparc64: Avoid irqsave/restore on vio.lock if
 in_softirq()

On (10/22/14 09:35), Julian Calaby wrote:
> >  void vio_port_up(struct vio_driver_state *vio)
> >  {
> > -       unsigned long flags;
> > +       unsigned long flags = 0;
> 
> Is gcc not smart enough to know that this variable isn't used before
> it's set? (I assume it isn't used elsewhere in this function)

No, it's not used elsewhere in the function, and yes, I too was
surprised by the build warning, which is why I initialized it
as above.

--Sowmini

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html