From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Elder Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the xfs tree Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:24:24 -0600 Message-ID: <1267719864.3998.22.camel@doink> References: <20100304111930.86f7cc62.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20100304005709.GE14317@discord.disaster> Reply-To: aelder@sgi.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from relay2.sgi.com ([192.48.179.30]:58709 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754295Ab0CDQZE (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Mar 2010 11:25:04 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20100304005709.GE14317@discord.disaster> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Dave Chinner Cc: Stephen Rothwell , xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 11:57 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 11:19:30AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > > > After merging the xfs tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) > > produced this warning: > > > > fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_aops.c: In function 'xfs_end_io': > > fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_aops.c:232: warning: 'error' may be used uninitialized in this function > > > > Introduced by commit 77d7a0c2eeb285c9069e15396703d0cb9690ac50 ("xfs: > > Non-blocking inode locking in IO completion"). > > > > I can't tell if this is a false positive. If the first two "if" > > statement bodies are skipped, then error is tested uninitialised. It is > > possible that at least one of them has to be executed. > > Right, there is a warning being generated there - I thought I fixed > that immediately after posting the first version of the patch. The > second version: > > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2010-02/msg00340.html > > definitely had it fixed. > > Alex, can you make sure you take the entire patch rather than > cutting and pasting bits from one patch version to another? That > way you don't miss small changes to the patch that might have been > forgotten about.... (Sorry if this gets duplicated--I was using a web-based mail interface yesterday and my first attempt got bounced back as potential spam.) I didn't expect you would change the patch content, only the description. I had already tested the previous code so just grabbed the new description when you re-posted. Sorry about the warning slipping through. I'll incorporate your fix soon. -Alex