Re: [PATCH] IB/mlx5: avoid bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 05:16:42PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> We get a false-positive warning in linux-next for the mlx5 driver:
>
> infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c: In function âmlx5_ib_reg_user_mrâ:
> infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c:1172:5: error: âorderâ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c:1161:6: note: âorderâ was declared here
> infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c:1173:6: error: âncontâ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c:1160:6: note: âncontâ was declared here
> infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c:1173:6: error: âpage_shiftâ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c:1158:6: note: âpage_shiftâ was declared here
> infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c:1143:13: error: ânpagesâ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c:1159:6: note: ânpagesâ was declared here
>
> I had a trivial workaround for gcc-5 or higher, but that didn't work
> on gcc-4.9 unfortunately.
>
> The only way I found to avoid the warnings for gcc-4.9, short of
> initializing each of the arguments first was to change the calling
> conventions to separate the error code from the umem pointer. This
> avoids casting the error codes from one pointer to another incompatible
> pointer, and lets gcc figure out when that the data is actually valid
> whenever we return successfully.
>
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>

Thanks Arnd for fixing it.
I have a very small comment which is not related to functionality.

Rather than that,
Acked-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

> ---
>  drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------
>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> index d4ad672b905b..88d8d292677b 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> @@ -815,29 +815,33 @@ static void prep_umr_unreg_wqe(struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev,
>  	umrwr->mkey = key;
>  }
>
> -static struct ib_umem *mr_umem_get(struct ib_pd *pd, u64 start, u64 length,
> -				   int access_flags, int *npages,
> -				   int *page_shift, int *ncont, int *order)
> +static int mr_umem_get(struct ib_pd *pd, u64 start, u64 length,
> +		       int access_flags, struct ib_umem ** umem,

I wonder if checkpatch does differentiate between "struct ib_umem ** umem"
and "struct ib_umem **umem". According to coding style, the second is preferable.

> +		       int *npages, int *page_shift, int *ncont,
> +		       int *order)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature