All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: cminyard@mvista.com (Corey Minyard)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] ipmi: work around gcc-4.9 build warning
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 13:21:20 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <540F4520.9090308@mvista.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <58708252.p9ogO3naVQ@wuerfel>

I'd prefer to fix gcc, but I understand.  This change is probably better
in general, anyway.

Queued for 3.18.  Thanks.

-corey

On 08/23/2014 02:04 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Building ipmi on arm with gcc-4.9 results in this warning
> for an allmodconfig build:
>
> drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c: In function 'ipmi_thread':
> include/linux/time.h:28:5: warning: 'busy_until.tv_sec' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>   if (lhs->tv_sec > rhs->tv_sec)
>      ^
> drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c:1007:18: note: 'busy_until.tv_sec' was declared here
>   struct timespec busy_until;
>                   ^
>
> The warning is bogus and this case can not occur. Apparently
> this is a false positive resulting from gcc getting a little
> smarter about tracking assignments but not smart enough. Marking
> the ipmi_thread_busy_wait function as inline gives the gcc
> optimization logic enough information to figure out for itself
> that the case cannot happen, which gets rid of the warning
> without adding any fake initialization.
>
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c
> index 5d665680ae33..539ff0db52fc 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c
> @@ -965,9 +965,9 @@ static inline int ipmi_si_is_busy(struct timespec *ts)
>  	return ts->tv_nsec != -1;
>  }
>  
> -static int ipmi_thread_busy_wait(enum si_sm_result smi_result,
> -				 const struct smi_info *smi_info,
> -				 struct timespec *busy_until)
> +static inline int ipmi_thread_busy_wait(enum si_sm_result smi_result,
> +					const struct smi_info *smi_info,
> +					struct timespec *busy_until)
>  {
>  	unsigned int max_busy_us = 0;
>  
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Corey Minyard <cminyard@mvista.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipmi: work around gcc-4.9 build warning
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 13:21:20 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <540F4520.9090308@mvista.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <58708252.p9ogO3naVQ@wuerfel>

I'd prefer to fix gcc, but I understand.  This change is probably better
in general, anyway.

Queued for 3.18.  Thanks.

-corey

On 08/23/2014 02:04 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Building ipmi on arm with gcc-4.9 results in this warning
> for an allmodconfig build:
>
> drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c: In function 'ipmi_thread':
> include/linux/time.h:28:5: warning: 'busy_until.tv_sec' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>   if (lhs->tv_sec > rhs->tv_sec)
>      ^
> drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c:1007:18: note: 'busy_until.tv_sec' was declared here
>   struct timespec busy_until;
>                   ^
>
> The warning is bogus and this case can not occur. Apparently
> this is a false positive resulting from gcc getting a little
> smarter about tracking assignments but not smart enough. Marking
> the ipmi_thread_busy_wait function as inline gives the gcc
> optimization logic enough information to figure out for itself
> that the case cannot happen, which gets rid of the warning
> without adding any fake initialization.
>
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c
> index 5d665680ae33..539ff0db52fc 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c
> @@ -965,9 +965,9 @@ static inline int ipmi_si_is_busy(struct timespec *ts)
>  	return ts->tv_nsec != -1;
>  }
>  
> -static int ipmi_thread_busy_wait(enum si_sm_result smi_result,
> -				 const struct smi_info *smi_info,
> -				 struct timespec *busy_until)
> +static inline int ipmi_thread_busy_wait(enum si_sm_result smi_result,
> +					const struct smi_info *smi_info,
> +					struct timespec *busy_until)
>  {
>  	unsigned int max_busy_us = 0;
>  
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel


  reply	other threads:[~2014-09-09 18:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-08-23 19:04 [PATCH] ipmi: work around gcc-4.9 build warning Arnd Bergmann
2014-08-23 19:04 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-09-09 18:21 ` Corey Minyard [this message]
2014-09-09 18:21   ` Corey Minyard

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=540F4520.9090308@mvista.com \
    --to=cminyard@mvista.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.