From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?N=E9lio?= Laranjeiro Subject: Re: [PATCH] eal: fix service array initialisation Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:04:43 +0200 Message-ID: <20170921120442.GC13383@autoinstall.dev.6wind.com> References: <1505994496-10141-1-git-send-email-nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" To: "Van Haaren, Harry" Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f50.google.com (mail-wm0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAED11B1A2 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:04:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f50.google.com with SMTP id m127so558218wmm.1 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 05:04:54 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi Harry, On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 11:53:48AM +0000, Van Haaren, Harry wrote: > > From: Nelio Laranjeiro [mailto:nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com] > > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 12:48 PM > > To: dev@dpdk.org > > Cc: Van Haaren, Harry > > Subject: [PATCH] eal: fix service array initialisation > > > > GCC is complaining on variable used without being initialised. > > > > dpdk.org/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c: > > In function ‘rte_service_start_with_defaults’: > > dpdk.org/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c:449:9: > > error: ‘ids[0]’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe- > > uninitialized] > > ret = rte_service_map_lcore_set(i, ids[lcore_iter], 1); > > > > Fixes: 21698354c832 ("service: introduce service cores concept") > > Cc: harry.van.haaren@intel.com > > > > Signed-off-by: Nelio Laranjeiro > > Hi Nelio, > > Thanks for the patch - indeed this seems to be an issue. It was raised by Yang too > in this thread http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-September/076210.html > > Given I've asked for a v2 of that patchset, and it was posted earlier I'll suggest > to merge that one, if that's OK with you? Yes, it is. I have search for such patch, but it is not easy to find it. I will move this patch to superseded on the patchwork. > On another note, I'm curious why neither I or the automated build-system experienced this... I don't know either, I faced the issue on debian 8, on ubuntu 16.04 and redhat the issue is not visible. It becomes quiet complicate for a single guy to test on so many distributions ;) > Thanks for investigating / proposing a solution. -Harry Thanks, -- Nélio Laranjeiro 6WIND