On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 01:22:13AM -0400, Nick Krause wrote:
> Here are my logs of the builds attached with warnings if they succeed
> for now failing arm configs
> according to the tests here,
fs/direct-io.c: In function ‘__blockdev_direct_IO’:
fs/direct-io.c:1011:12: warning: ‘to’ may be used uninitialized in this
function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
u = (to - from) >> blkbits;
OK, do you see why this is a false positive? And why asking the
thousands of people "in the commmunity" to all do exactly the same
evaluation is a massive waste of time?
And why people, after doing a quick evaluation to determine that the
very first warning you sent out (which was repeated multiple times in
your log; you didn't even bother to winnow out duplicate warnings)
is a false positive, might be inclined to ignore all e-mails from
you "asking for help" in the future?
Look, it's good that you're being enthusiastic. But you need to do
more than just send screen shots of a kernel bugzilla where it's
already been explained to you that darned few people care about the
open/closed statistics, or running builds to complain about warnings.
If you want to send a patch to clean up the warning, figure out how to
do that, and then to send the to the right people. (Hint: reading the
Documentation/SubmittingPatches and Documentation/Submitchecklist
files.)
Regards,
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
