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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 21 Oct 2014 20:16:12 -0400
From:	Sowmini Varadhan <>
To:	Dave Kleikamp <>
Cc:	Julian Calaby <>,
	"David S. Miller" <>,
	netdev <>,
	sparclinux <>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 3/4] sparc64: Avoid irqsave/restore on vio.lock if

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.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists