Hi Paolo, [auto build test WARNING on v4.12-rc5] [also build test WARNING on next-20170616] [cannot apply to block/for-next] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system]
url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Paolo-Valente/block-bfq-update-wr_busy_queues-if-needed-on-a-queue-split/20170619-145003 config: i386-randconfig-x000-201725 (attached as .config) compiler: gcc-6 (Debian 6.2.0-3) 6.2.0 20160901 reproduce: # save the attached .config to linux build tree make ARCH=i386 Note: it may well be a FALSE warning. FWIW you are at least aware of it now. http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Better_Uninitialized_Warnings All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>): block/bfq-iosched.c: In function 'bfq_get_rq_private': >> block/bfq-iosched.c:770:10: warning: 'old_wr_coeff' may be used >> uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] else if (old_wr_coeff > 1 && bfqq->wr_coeff == 1) ^ block/bfq-iosched.c:731:15: note: 'old_wr_coeff' was declared here unsigned int old_wr_coeff; ^~~~~~~~~~~~ vim +/old_wr_coeff +770 block/bfq-iosched.c 754 time_is_before_jiffies(bfqq->last_wr_start_finish + 755 bfqq->wr_cur_max_time))) { 756 bfq_log_bfqq(bfqq->bfqd, bfqq, 757 "resume state: switching off wr"); 758 759 bfqq->wr_coeff = 1; 760 } 761 762 /* make sure weight will be updated, however we got here */ 763 bfqq->entity.prio_changed = 1; 764 765 if (likely(!busy)) 766 return; 767 768 if (old_wr_coeff == 1 && bfqq->wr_coeff > 1) 769 bfqd->wr_busy_queues++; > 770 else if (old_wr_coeff > 1 && bfqq->wr_coeff == 1) 771 bfqd->wr_busy_queues--; 772 } 773 774 static int bfqq_process_refs(struct bfq_queue *bfqq) 775 { 776 return bfqq->ref - bfqq->allocated - bfqq->entity.on_st; 777 } 778 --- 0-DAY kernel test infrastructure Open Source Technology Center https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all Intel Corporation
.config.gz
Description: application/gzip
