From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Carpenter Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 22:31:38 +0000 Subject: Re: [Q] warning BUG() related fixing and janitors question Message-Id: <20120416223138.GA22294@elgon.mountain> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 06:12:07PM -0300, Ezequiel Garc=EDa wrote: > Hi Dan, >=20 > 2012/4/16 Dan Carpenter : > > > > Don't start messing in scheduler code if you have any doubts about > > what you are doing. =A0My advise is don't send a patch for this > > warning. =A0Most times people leave BUG() enabled so we don't really > > care about the warning. >=20 > Okey. Perhaps I picked the wrong example, there are a whole bunch of warn= ings > related to the same BUG() stuff, here's a template example: >=20 > void *p; >=20 > switch (something) { > case a: > p =3D foo(); > case b: > p =3D bar(); > default: > BUG(); > } >=20 > dosomething(p); >=20 > -- >=20 > This will trigger warning "p could be used uninitialized" or something. > I know most of us just leave BUG on, so you say these warnings aren't imp= ortant? Yeah. Probably best to ignore them. regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" = in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html