From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752398AbdFVHyP (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 22 Jun 2017 03:54:15 -0400
Received: from mail-wr0-f180.google.com ([209.85.128.180]:35731 "EHLO
        mail-wr0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751115AbdFVHyO (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 22 Jun 2017 03:54:14 -0400
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:54:10 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@linutronix.de>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: remove unused variable in boot_cpu_state_init
Message-ID: <20170622075410.pur2m5dobqcwosjh@gmail.com>
References: <20170621215741.4028236-1-arnd@arndb.de>
 <20170621221054.GU3721@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20170622072644.so23jacjhvrox5pd@gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a1O4kxMNH00+ox44RMs_pdoQv6+tTvnJOe21eXezs-y_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170622075104.dlajhtcx7p3sgacs@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170622075104.dlajhtcx7p3sgacs@gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:

> 
> * Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> 
> > > So I think we should consider it a syntactic construct to avoid.
> > 
> > Unused variables are relatively harmless compared to used-uninitialized
> > variables that are always bugs (though they are provably impossible to
> > detect correctly in some cases).
> 
> So the thing I was most worried about was that old GCC used to not warn about:
> 
> 	long __maybe_unused error;
> 
> 	...
> 
> 	if (error)
> 		return error;

Gah - I got totally confused, the dangerous construct I was thinking of was 
uninitialized_var(), not __maybe_unused.

So ignore my replies! :-)

Thanks,

	Ingo