Re: [PATCH 11/28] block: rdb: false-postive gcc-4.9 -Wmaybe-uninitialized

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 11:57:33 AM CEST Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> It already got silenced by initializing at declaration in one of the
> downstream trees, so I'd rather we do
> 
> @@ -3756,7 +3819,7 @@ static void rbd_watch_cb(void *arg, u64
> notify_id, u64 cookie,
>         struct rbd_device *rbd_dev = arg;
>         void *p = data;
>         void *const end = p + data_len;
> -       u8 struct_v;
> +       u8 struct_v = 0;
>         u32 len;
>         u32 notify_op;
>         int ret;
> 
> to reduce the churn.

Fair enough. I try to avoid adding extraneous initializations like
this, but my suggested change is not all that different here,
except if ceph_start_decoding() got changed in a way that could
lead to another uninitialized use.

> The "block" prefix is redundant and "rdb" should be "rbd" in the subject.

Oops.

	Arnd