Re: [PATCH 11/28] block: rdb: false-postive gcc-4.9 -Wmaybe-uninitialized

2016-10-18 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 11:57:33 AM CEST Ilya Dryomov wrote: > It already got silenced by initializing at declaration in one of the > downstream trees, so I'd rather we do > > @@ -3756,7 +3819,7 @@ static void rbd_watch_cb(void *arg, u64 > notify_id, u64 cookie, > struct rbd_device *r

Re: [PATCH 11/28] block: rdb: false-postive gcc-4.9 -Wmaybe-uninitialized

2016-10-18 Thread Ilya Dryomov
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > When building with gcc-4.9 -Wmaybe-uninitialized, we get a bogus > warning in rbd_watch_cb, as the variable is not used at all > in the one case in which it is not initialized first: > > drivers/block/rbd.c: In function ‘rbd_watch_cb’: > dri

[PATCH 11/28] block: rdb: false-postive gcc-4.9 -Wmaybe-uninitialized

2016-10-17 Thread Arnd Bergmann
When building with gcc-4.9 -Wmaybe-uninitialized, we get a bogus warning in rbd_watch_cb, as the variable is not used at all in the one case in which it is not initialized first: drivers/block/rbd.c: In function ‘rbd_watch_cb’: drivers/block/rbd.c:3690:5: error: ‘struct_v’ may be used uninitialize