On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 07:57:52AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 06:30:41AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:07:03AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > After merging the xfs tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> > > ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning:
> > >
> > > fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c: In function 'xfs_buf_item_unlock':
> > > fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c:573:9: warning: unused variable 'ordered'
> > > [-Wunused-variable]
> > > bool ordered = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED);
> > > ^
> > >
> > > Introduced by commit
> > >
> > > a097077ef708 ("xfs: remove unnecessary dirty bli format check for
> > > ordered bufs")
> > >
> >
> > Ugh, this is due to the refactoring of this patch between v1 and v2. I
> > specifically recall testing for this in v1 because I added the ordered
> > bool purely to clean up the ASSERT(), then I apparently lost of track of
> > it for v2.
> >
> > Anyways.. Christoph, Darrick, preferences to clean this up..? I have no
> > preference between the v1 or v2 factoring. Or if it's easier, we could
> > always just drop something like the hunk below on top. Thoughts?
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > --- 8< ---
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
> > index ef2c137..f5d25f5 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
> > @@ -567,10 +567,15 @@ xfs_buf_item_unlock(
> > {
> > struct xfs_buf_log_item *bip = BUF_ITEM(lip);
> > struct xfs_buf *bp = bip->bli_buf;
> > - bool aborted = !!(lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_ABORTED);
> > - bool hold = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_HOLD);
> > - bool dirty = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_DIRTY);
> > - bool ordered = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED);
> > + bool aborted;
> > + bool hold;
> > + bool dirty;
> > + bool ordered;
> > +
> > + aborted = !!(lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_ABORTED);
> > + hold = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_HOLD);
> > + dirty = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_DIRTY);
> > + ordered = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED);
>
> The trouble is, 'ordered' is still an unused variable on !DEBUG builds,
> since the only user of ordered is that ASSERT. So either we #ifdef
> DEBUG the variable out of existence or employ one of those silly
> 'ordered = ordered' constructions to shut up gcc, if that even still
> works.
>
The warning goes away for me if we separate the initialization of
ordered from the declaration. Do you observe otherwise?
Brian
> --D
>
> >
> > /* Clear the buffer's association with this transaction. */
> > bp->b_transp = NULL;
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> > the body of a message to [email protected]
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
