Re: [PATCH] nvdimm: avoid bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning

[Dan Williams]

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Ross Zwisler
<ross.zwisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 01:48:48PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> Removing the btt_rw_page/pmem_rw_page functions had a surprising
>> side-effect of introducing a false-positive warning in another
>> function, due to changed inlining decisions in gcc:
>>
>> In file included from drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c:36:0:
>> drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c: In function 'pmem_make_request':
>> drivers/nvdimm/nd.h:407:2: error: 'start' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
>> drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c:174:16: note: 'start' was declared here
>> In file included from drivers/nvdimm/btt.c:27:0:
>> drivers/nvdimm/btt.c: In function 'btt_make_request':
>> drivers/nvdimm/nd.h:407:2: error: 'start' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
>> drivers/nvdimm/btt.c:1202:16: note: 'start' was declared here
>>
>> The problem is that gcc fails to track the value of the 'do_acct'
>> variable here and has to read it back from stack, but it does
>> remember that 'start' may be uninitialized sometimes.
>>
>> This shuts up the warning by making nd_iostat_start() always
>> initialize the 'start' variable. In those cases that gcc successfully
>> tracks the state of the variable, this will have no effect.
>>
>> Fixes: 503a5e89b1de ("drivers/nvdimm/btt.c: remove btt_rw_page()")
>> Fixes: 58100d6e735e ("drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c: remove pmem_rw_page()")
>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
>
> This change looks fine:
>
> Reviewed-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I believe the patches removing the btt_rw_page() and btt_rw_page() are on hold
> until I can get some performance numbers to justify them.
>
> Dan, do you want to take this as is, or do you want me to include it in my
> larger rw_page() series if/when that gets revived?

I'd say include it with your set.