From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33037 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755020Ab1EQOBA (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 May 2011 10:01:00 -0400 Message-ID: <4DD27F93.80201@RedHat.com> Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 10:00:51 -0400 From: Steve Dickson To: "J. Bruce Fields" CC: Jim Rees , Linux NFS Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] Removed compilation warnings from mountd/cache.c References: <1305561014-25688-1-git-send-email-steved@redhat.com> <20110516172927.GA1348@fieldses.org> <20110516191811.GA1048@merit.edu> <20110516192530.GB1680@fieldses.org> In-Reply-To: <20110516192530.GB1680@fieldses.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On 05/16/2011 03:25 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 03:18:11PM -0400, Jim Rees wrote: >> J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:50:14AM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote: >> > Commit 5604b35a6 introduced a number of missing initializer >> > warnings that were missed. This patch removes those warnings. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Steve Dickson >> > --- >> > utils/mountd/cache.c | 6 ++++-- >> > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/utils/mountd/cache.c b/utils/mountd/cache.c >> > index df6b38f..86a2790 100644 >> > --- a/utils/mountd/cache.c >> > +++ b/utils/mountd/cache.c >> > @@ -825,7 +825,6 @@ struct { >> > char *cache_name; >> > void (*cache_handle)(FILE *f); >> > FILE *f; >> > - char vbuf[RPC_CHAN_BUF_SIZE]; >> > } cachelist[] = { >> > { "auth.unix.ip", auth_unix_ip, NULL}, >> > { "auth.unix.gid", auth_unix_gid, NULL}, >> > @@ -833,6 +832,9 @@ struct { >> > { "nfsd.fh", nfsd_fh, NULL}, >> > { NULL, NULL, NULL } >> > }; >> > +struct vbs { >> > + char vbuf[RPC_CHAN_BUF_SIZE]; >> > +} vbufs [(sizeof(cachelist)/sizeof(cachelist[0])) - 1]; >> >> Weird--why does that make a difference? It's statically initialized >> memory either way, isn't it? >> >> The problem is the vbuf item was added to the struct but no initializer was >> given for it. It could also have been fixed by supplying the missing >> initializer: >> >> { "auth.unix.ip", auth_unix_ip, NULL, ""}, ... > > Oh, OK. Then could we do that, Steve, instead of moving the buffer > to a separate structure? Good point... I thought I tried added a "" and it warnings still appeared, which was the reason for the extra structure.... I guess I was a bit confused... because by far adding "" is a much better fix.... thanks! steved.