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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 20:16:12 -0400 From: Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com> To: Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com> Cc: Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@...il.com>, "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 (10/21/14 18:56), Dave Kleikamp wrote: > > > > 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) > > It probably assumes in_softirq() might evaluate differently in the each > case. yes, that's what I suspected too. I suppose it is possible from the compiler's point of view that something in between might change the result of in_softirq() so that we may be using an uninit variable in the second call. anyway, the warning was annoying, and would only numb the user into ignoring other real issues, so I figured I might as well silence the warning. --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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists