Re: [PATCH mdadm] raid6check.c: fix "misleading-indentation" error

[Yilong Ren <yilongx.ren@intel.com>]

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 08:00:01AM -0400, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> renyl <yilongx.ren@intel.com> writes:
> > From: Yilong Ren <yilongx.ren@intel.com>
> >
> > To fix the following error info:
> >
> > root@vm-lkp-nex04-8G-7 /tmp/mdadm# make test
> > cc -Wall -Werror -Wstrict-prototypes -Wextra -Wno-unused-parameter -ggdb -DSendmail=\""/usr/sbin/sendmail -t"\" -DCONFFILE=\"/etc/mdadm.conf\" -DCONFFILE2=\"/etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf\" -DMAP_DIR=\"/run/mdadm\" -DMAP_FILE=\"map\" -DMDMON_DIR=\"/run/mdadm\" -DFAILED_SLOTS_DIR=\"/run/mdadm/failed-slots\" -DNO_COROSYNC -DNO_DLM -DVERSION=\"3.4-43-g1dcee1c\" -DVERS_DATE="\"06th April 2016\"" -DUSE_PTHREADS -DBINDIR=\"/sbin\"  -c -o raid6check.o raid6check.c
> > raid6check.c: In function 'manual_repair':
> > raid6check.c:267:4: error: this 'else' clause does not guard... [-Werror=misleading-indentation]
> >     else
> >     ^~~~
> > raid6check.c:269:5: note: ...this statement, but the latter is misleadingly indented as if it is guarded by the 'else'
> >      printf("Repairing D(%d) and P\n", failed_data);
> >      ^~~~~~
> > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
> > <builtin>: recipe for target 'raid6check.o' failed
> > make: *** [raid6check.o] Error 1
> > root@vm-lkp-nex04-8G-7 /tmp/mdadm# 
> >
> >
> > Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
> > Cc: linux-raid <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>
> > Cc: LKP <lkp@eclists.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Yilong Ren <yilongx.ren@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  raid6check.c | 3 ++-
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/raid6check.c b/raid6check.c
> > index ad7ffe7..acfc9a3 100644
> > --- a/raid6check.c
> > +++ b/raid6check.c
> > @@ -264,9 +264,10 @@ int manual_repair(int chunk_size, int syndrome_disks,
> >  			int failed_data;
> >  			if (failed_slot1 == -1)
> >  				failed_data = failed_slot2;
> > -			else
> > +			else {
> >  				failed_data = failed_slot1;
> >  				printf("Repairing D(%d) and P\n", failed_data);
> > +			}
> >  			raid6_datap_recov(syndrome_disks+2, chunk_size,
> >  					  failed_data, (uint8_t**)blocks, 1);
> >  		} else {
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I suspect this patch is wrong and the code is meant to print in either
> case.

Oops, should like below:


diff --git a/raid6check.c b/raid6check.c
index ad7ffe7..551f835 100644
--- a/raid6check.c
+++ b/raid6check.c
@@ -266,7 +266,8 @@ int manual_repair(int chunk_size, int syndrome_disks,
                                failed_data = failed_slot2;
                        else
                                failed_data = failed_slot1;
-                               printf("Repairing D(%d) and P\n", failed_data);
+
+                       printf("Repairing D(%d) and P\n", failed_data);
                        raid6_datap_recov(syndrome_disks+2, chunk_size,
                                          failed_data, (uint8_t**)blocks, 1);
                } else {
--

will send v2 after Neil confirm this point, thanks.

> 
> Neil?
> 
> Cheers,
> Jes

-- 
Thanks
Ren Yilong