From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [103.22.144.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF1EC1A0775 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 19:28:29 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88C531402B9 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 19:28:29 +1000 (AEST) Message-ID: <55BB3FB8.9010606@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 11:28:24 +0200 From: Thomas Huth MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Axtens , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org CC: mikey@neuling.org, imunsie@au.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] cxl: Fix ambiguous else warnings References: <1438324508-30341-1-git-send-email-dja@axtens.net> In-Reply-To: <1438324508-30341-1-git-send-email-dja@axtens.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 31/07/15 08:35, Daniel Axtens wrote: > Every time I build cxl I see the following warnings: > > /scratch/dja/linux-capi/drivers/misc/cxl/pci.c: In function ‘sanitise_afu_regs’: > /scratch/dja/linux-capi/drivers/misc/cxl/pci.c:712:6: warning: suggest explicit braces to avoid ambiguous ‘else’ [-Wparentheses] > if (reg & CXL_PSL_DSISR_TRANS) > ^ > /scratch/dja/linux-capi/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c: In function ‘fail_psl_irq’: > /scratch/dja/linux-capi/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c:184:5: warning: suggest explicit braces to avoid ambiguous ‘else’ [-Wparentheses] > if (irq_info->dsisr & CXL_PSL_DSISR_TRANS) > ^ > > They're annoying. Fix them by inserting the braces. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Axtens > --- > drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c | 5 +++-- > drivers/misc/cxl/pci.c | 5 +++-- > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c b/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c > index 121ec48f3ab4..c11e583a15a9 100644 > --- a/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c > +++ b/drivers/misc/cxl/irq.c > @@ -181,10 +181,11 @@ static irqreturn_t cxl_irq(int irq, void *data, struct cxl_irq_info *irq_info) > > static irqreturn_t fail_psl_irq(struct cxl_afu *afu, struct cxl_irq_info *irq_info) > { > - if (irq_info->dsisr & CXL_PSL_DSISR_TRANS) > + if (irq_info->dsisr & CXL_PSL_DSISR_TRANS) { > cxl_p2n_write(afu, CXL_PSL_TFC_An, CXL_PSL_TFC_An_AE); > - else > + } else { > cxl_p2n_write(afu, CXL_PSL_TFC_An, CXL_PSL_TFC_An_A); > + } > > return IRQ_HANDLED; > } Why does your GCC complain here at all? The code doesn't look ambiguous to me... Which version of GCC are you using? I just did a quick test compile here, and these warnings do not occur for me. Thomas