Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix compiler warnings

[Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>]

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 03:28:24PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> Fix up all the compiler warnings about unused variables that have crept in.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
> ---
>  fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_fork.c |    9 +++------
>  fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c          |    4 ++++
>  fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c       |    4 ++++
>  3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_fork.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_fork.c
> index fb310d0..31840ca 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_fork.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_fork.c
> @@ -1499,14 +1499,11 @@ xfs_iext_realloc_indirect(
>  	xfs_ifork_t	*ifp,		/* inode fork pointer */
>  	int		new_size)	/* new indirection array size */
>  {
> -	int		nlists;		/* number of irec's (ex lists) */
> -	int		size;		/* current indirection array size */
> -
>  	ASSERT(ifp->if_flags & XFS_IFEXTIREC);
> -	nlists = ifp->if_real_bytes / XFS_IEXT_BUFSZ;
> -	size = nlists * sizeof(xfs_ext_irec_t);
>  	ASSERT(ifp->if_real_bytes);
> -	ASSERT((new_size >= 0) && (new_size != size));
> +	ASSERT((new_size >= 0) &&
> +	       (new_size != ((ifp->if_real_bytes / XFS_IEXT_BUFSZ) *
> +			     sizeof(xfs_ext_irec_t))));
>  	if (new_size == 0) {
>  		xfs_iext_destroy(ifp);
>  	} else {
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
> index f5d25f5..806b17e 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
> @@ -570,12 +570,16 @@ xfs_buf_item_unlock(
>  	bool			aborted;
>  	bool			hold;
>  	bool			dirty;
> +#ifdef DEBUG
>  	bool			ordered;
> +#endif
>  
>  	aborted = !!(lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_ABORTED);
>  	hold = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_HOLD);
>  	dirty = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_DIRTY);
> +#ifdef DEBUG
>  	ordered = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED);
> +#endif

I'd revert the last patch that changed this code (because it's
busted!) and just do this here:

+#ifdef DEBUG
	bool                    ordered = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED);
+#endif

Also, feel free to rebase for-next to get rid of that last patch -
just like linux-next, for-next isn't meant to be 100% stable. IMO
it's better at this point to rebase for-next to remove/correct
mistakes than to have commits in the tree that don't work....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com