![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
young dave wrote:
> Hi,>>> Given what you said above, I don't see gcc, on its best day, will ever
>> know enough to validate that that variable is indeed always initialized.
>> So I would vote for silencing it on those grounds.>> I agree too. How about this one:>> diff -dur linux/fs/nfsd/nfs4acl.c linux.new/fs/nfsd/nfs4acl.c
> --- linux/fs/nfsd/nfs4acl.c 2007-05-29 12:28:29.000000000 +0000
> +++ linux.new/fs/nfsd/nfs4acl.c 2007-05-29 12:30:45.000000000 +0000
> @@ -183,8 +183,6 @@> summarize_posix_acl(struct posix_acl *acl, struct posix_acl_summary *pas)
> {> struct posix_acl_entry *pa, *pe;
> - pas->users = 0;
> - pas->groups = 0;
> pas->mask = 07;
>
> pe = acl->a_entries + acl->a_count;
> @@ -229,6 +227,7 @@
> int eflag = ((flags & NFS4_ACL_TYPE_DEFAULT) ?
> NFS4_INHERITANCE_FLAGS | NFS4_ACE_INHERIT_ONLY_ACE : 0);
>
> + memset(pas, 0, sizeof(struct posix_acl_summary);
> BUG_ON(pacl->a_count < 3);
> summarize_posix_acl(pacl, &pas);
>
^^^^^
apart from the fact that this patch won't compile let alone run...
Matt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-05-29 07:33 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||