Robert Love wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 15:57 -0800, Robert Love wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 14:05 -0800, Joe Eykholt wrote:
>>> Remove an extra call to fc_frame_header_get() in fc_lport_recv_els_req().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Joe Eykholt <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_lport.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_lport.c b/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_lport.c
>>> index a2a49a2..7638812 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_lport.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_lport.c
>>> @@ -865,7 +865,7 @@ out:
>>> static void fc_lport_recv_els_req(struct fc_lport *lport, struct fc_seq
>>> *sp,
>>> struct fc_frame *fp)
>>> {
>>> - struct fc_frame_header *fh = fc_frame_header_get(fp);
>>> + struct fc_frame_header *fh;
>>> void (*recv) (struct fc_seq *, struct fc_frame *, struct fc_lport *);
>>>
>>> mutex_lock(&lport->lp_mutex);
>>>
>> I believe this patch is causing the following compilation warning:
>>
>> drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_lport.c: In function ‘fc_lport_recv_req’:
>> drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_lport.c:879: warning: ‘fh’ may be used
>> uninitialized in this function
>
> I think this might be my fault. Your patch removes the initialization
> from fc_lport_recv_els_req, but the patch in fcoe-next removes it from
> fc_lport_recv_req. Not sure how that happened. I'll fix the patch, but
> it's going to require people downstream to rebase.
Oh, OK. I didn't realize ... that patch should've been combined with
my fc4 hooks patch. fc_lport_els_req doesn't exist prior to that, so
this patch should just be deleted.
Joe
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
