From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/net: do not redefine bool
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 21:16:13 +0200
Message-ID: <2226451.sCb16aOFOU@xps>
References: <20180920001853.23454-1-thomas@monjalon.net>
 <2353010.843Iz9OGFG@xps> <1d72af01-ec77-0d5f-12a7-9a612f06982a@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Rahul Lakkireddy <rahul.lakkireddy@chelsio.com>,
 Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>, Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>,
 Xiao Wang <xiao.w.wang@intel.com>,
 Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
 Rasesh Mody <rasesh.mody@cavium.com>, Harish Patil <harish.patil@cavium.com>,
 Shahed Shaikh <shahed.shaikh@cavium.com>, Yong Wang <yongwang@vmware.com>,
 dev@dpdk.org
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72BF75B30
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  3 Oct 2018 21:16:17 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <1d72af01-ec77-0d5f-12a7-9a612f06982a@intel.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

03/10/2018 16:11, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 9/25/2018 10:04 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 25/09/2018 10:03, Ferruh Yigit:
> >> On 9/24/2018 5:59 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> >>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> >>>>> @@ -2025,7 +2025,7 @@ ixgbe_recv_pkts_lro(void *rx_queue, struct rt=
e_mbuf **rx_pkts, uint16_t nb_pkts,
> >>>>>  		struct ixgbe_rx_entry *next_rxe =3D NULL;
> >>>>>  		struct rte_mbuf *first_seg;
> >>>>>  		struct rte_mbuf *rxm;
> >>>>> -		struct rte_mbuf *nmb;
> >>>>> +		struct rte_mbuf *nmb =3D NULL;
> >>>>
> >>>> This change is unrelated. Can we separate this one?
> >>>
> >>> Yes it looks unrelated but it becomes necessary when including stdboo=
l.h.
> >>> I don't know the root cause, but yes, it may deserve a separate commi=
t.
> >>> Maybe an ixgbe maintainer can take care of it?
> >>
> >> Why becomes necessary? Does it give a build warning etc?
> >> My concern is this is in data path, one extra assignment, it would be =
better to
> >> confirm it is really needed.
> >=20
> > Yes I had a compilation error.
> > If you cannot reproduce it, I will try to re-run my compilation tests.
>=20
> I got the error with gcc [1] but it seems false positive and only generat=
ed when
> <stdbool.h> included in ixgbe_rxtx.c, so this is an odd one, I am not abl=
e to
> find root cause.
>=20
> But since it is false positive, what do you think adding compiler option =
to
> disable this warning for this file?

I don't like disabling warnings on files.
We can take time to work on this patch. It is not required for 18.11.


> [1]
> .../drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c:2139:14: error: =E2=80=98nmb=E2=80=99 =
may be used
> uninitialized in this function [-Werror=3Dmaybe-uninitialized]
>     rxe->mbuf =3D nmb;
>     ~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~
>=20
> $ gcc --version
> gcc (GCC) 8.1.1 20180712 (Red Hat 8.1.1-5)