From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: QFQ Plus: fair-queueing service at DRR cost Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:02:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20121120.130202.1918742054229219388.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20121119.184828.628106002307042971.davem@davemloft.net> <50ABC19E.9030209@unimore.it> <20121120095304.420ded7c@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: paolo.valente@unimore.it, jhs@mojatatu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, rizzo@iet.unipi.it, fchecconi@gmail.com To: shemminger@vyatta.com Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20121120095304.420ded7c@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Stephen Hemminger Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:53:04 -0800 > There are actually lots of bogus warnings than seem to only occur > because gcc 4.4 does a bad job of checking. Later versions are fixed > and don't generate warnings. > > My preference is to not add the unnecessary initialization because > if you get in the habit of doing it. The whole purpose of the uninitialized > check is lost. Try again, this was with gcc-4.7.2-2 on Fedora. There are too many preconditions, across multiple basic block, which together ensure the skb is in fact initialized at the point in question and the compiler simply isn't sophisticated enough to see that.