On 03/16/2011 09:12 PM, Cyril Hrubis wrote: >>> > > Hmm, why you are removing the if (no_xfs) here (I don't say it's wrong, >>> > > I only want to know why)? >> > >> > The compiler gave warning that diob.d_* may not initialized. I don't >> > know what the values diob.d_* should be if XFS exists (no_xfs == 0), but >> > I guess they should be the same as when XFS not available. > Actually it's a little more complicated. This change breaks compilation > without -DNO_XFS (that is defined as default in Makefile). > > The whole point of NO_XFS and no_xfs is that the test may be compiled > with and without xfs specialities as well as executed with and without > xfs specialities.
I intended to fix compilation and disable warning both with/without NO_XFS, now I recognize my patch couldn't fix the compilation when without NO_XFS. But seems something more needs to be done: when -DNO_XFS removed, the program couldn't get compiled even not applied my patch for now.... Will workout a new patch later. -- Quality Engineer (Kernel) in Red Hat Software (Beijing) Co., R&D Branch http://www.cn.redhat.com/ TEL: +86-10-62608150 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Colocation vs. Managed Hosting A question and answer guide to determining the best fit for your organization - today and in the future. http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
