From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"Jonas Jensen" <jonas.jensen@gmail.com>,
"Luis de Bethencourt" <luis@debethencourt.com>,
"françois romieu" <romieu@fr.zoreil.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] net: moxa: fix an error code
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:15:26 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160302121526.GS5273@mwanda> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2743496.LmeGdM2Ipd@wuerfel>
On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 12:36:05PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> The uninitialized warning here is about a type mismatch preventing
> gcc from noticing that two conditions are the same, I'm not sure
> if this is a bug in gcc, or required by the C standard.
I wouldn't call it a bug, because everyone has to make trade offs
between how fast the program runs and how accurate it is. And trade
offs between how ambitious your warnings are vs how many false positives
you can tolerate.
Anyway, I feel like we should just work around GCC on a case by case
basis instead of always using PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(). The next version of
GCC will fix some false positives and introduce new ones... Next time
using PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO() could cause warnings instead of fixing them.
Smatch works in a different way and it parse the code correctly. But
Smatch is slow and sometimes runs out of memory and gives up trying to
parse large functions. Smatch sees the two returns and tries to figure
out the implications of each (uninitialized vs initialized). If you
change the code to:
error = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(hash);
if (!error)
*leaf_out = be64_to_cpu(*(hash + index));
return error;
then Smatch still breaks that up into two separate returns which imply
initialized vs uninitialized.
regards,
dan carpenter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-02 12:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-02 10:11 [patch] net: moxa: fix an error code Dan Carpenter
2016-03-02 10:52 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-03-02 11:21 ` Dan Carpenter
2016-03-02 11:36 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-03-02 12:15 ` Dan Carpenter [this message]
2016-03-02 12:42 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-03-03 22:17 ` David Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160302121526.GS5273@mwanda \
--to=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jonas.jensen@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luis@debethencourt.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=romieu@fr.zoreil.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).