Re: [PATCH] qla2xxx: avoid maybe_uninitialized warning
From: James Bottomley
Date: Wed Mar 16 2016 - 10:24:36 EST
On Wed, 2016-03-16 at 14:05 +0000, Himanshu Madhani wrote:
> On 3/16/16, 5:59 AM, "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 15 March 2016 14:49:14 James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2016-03-15 at 22:40 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This slightly rearranges the code to move the second if() block
> > > > into the first one, to avoid the warning while retaining the
> > > > behavior of the code.
> > >
> > > I thought our usual policy was to ask someone to fix the compiler
> > > when it emitted a spurious warning.
> > No, the rule is that we shouldn't blindly add initializations to
> > the variables when the compiler should have figured it out.
> > In this case, I wouldn't expect the compiler to ever see through
> > the unlikely() macro, and I'm not adding a potentially
> > counterproductive initialization, so I see no reason not to apply
> > the patch.
OK, as long as there's a good reason why the compiler can never be
fixed to sort out this case.
> I would like to keep unlikely() macro in the code. This patch looks
> Acked-By: Himanshu Madhani <himanshu.madhani@xxxxxxxxxx>
Well, OK that's good enough for me.