From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755902AbZDDMRl (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Apr 2009 08:17:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753132AbZDDMRN (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Apr 2009 08:17:13 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f169.google.com ([209.85.218.169]:33793 "EHLO mail-bw0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751623AbZDDMRL (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Apr 2009 08:17:11 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-disposition:message-id:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=Hr1JH3glXT/MY5frccIotshzvrLCnYxDWGfcMbF7Hem0e8Fj3fPn48PtLm984AILwV hRB+h/s+ypDZZIv0pZX4hx8FYDFMqWToDi8tgOs+G6Iw1cbw0NTfpeMFlTee+H33p/Rx Q45x4zt39E+moEWlL5d6auUV+Cx3TJ+ud3BFU= From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz To: petkovbb@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ide-cd: cleanup cdrom_decode_status Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 14:17:20 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.1 (Linux/2.6.29-next-20090403; KDE/4.2.1; i686; ; ) Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org References: <1238655519-10074-2-git-send-email-petkovbb@gmail.com> <200904030108.39927.bzolnier@gmail.com> <20090403045803.GA3732@liondog.tnic> In-Reply-To: <20090403045803.GA3732@liondog.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200904041417.21125.bzolnier@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday 03 April 2009, Borislav Petkov wrote: [...] > > > @@ -614,14 +589,15 @@ static ide_startstop_t cdrom_newpc_intr(ide_drive_t *drive) > > > struct request *rq = hwif->rq; > > > ide_expiry_t *expiry = NULL; > > > int dma_error = 0, dma, thislen, uptodate = 0; > > > - int write = (rq_data_dir(rq) == WRITE) ? 1 : 0, rc, nsectors; > > > + int write, uninitialized_var(rc), nsectors; > > > > Why is uninitialized_var() here now? > > because gcc is whining that it might be uninitialized although I've > doublechecked all codepaths returning a valid error. It is there to shut > up this warning, actually. It is gcc's fault (version dependent on top of it). However since it may affect other people and workarounding it costs us absolutely nothing lets be pragmatic about it. Please resend this change in a separate patch so it can be applied.