lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] writeback: initialize m_dirty to avoid compile warning
On 11/18/2015 1:53 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 November 2015 15:38:55 Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:26:41 -0800 Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>>> When building kernel with gcc 5.2, the below warning is raised:
>>>
>>> mm/page-writeback.c: In function 'balance_dirty_pages.isra.10':
>>> mm/page-writeback.c:1545:17: warning: 'm_dirty' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>>> unsigned long m_dirty, m_thresh, m_bg_thresh;
>>>
>>> The m_dirty{thresh, bg_thresh} are initialized in the block of "if (mdtc)",
>>> so if mdts is null, they won't be initialized before being used.
>>> Initialize m_dirty to zero, also initialize m_thresh and m_bg_thresh to keep
>>> consistency.
>>>
>>> They are used later by if condition:
>>> !mdtc || m_dirty <= dirty_freerun_ceiling(m_thresh, m_bg_thresh)
>>>
>>> If mdtc is null, dirty_freerun_ceiling will not be called at all, so the
>>> initialization will not change any behavior other than just ceasing the compile
>>> warning.
>>
>> Geeze I hate that warning. gcc really could be a bit smarter about it
>> and this is such a case.
>>
>>> --- a/mm/page-writeback.c
>>> +++ b/mm/page-writeback.c
>>> @@ -1542,7 +1542,7 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
>>> for (;;) {
>>> unsigned long now = jiffies;
>>> unsigned long dirty, thresh, bg_thresh;
>>> - unsigned long m_dirty, m_thresh, m_bg_thresh;
>>> + unsigned long m_dirty = 0, m_thresh = 0, m_bg_thresh = 0;
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * Unstable writes are a feature of certain networked
>>
>> Adding runtime overhead to suppress a compile-time warning is Just
>> Wrong.
>>
>> With gcc-4.4.4 the above patch actually reduces page-writeback.o's
>> .text by 36 bytes, lol. With gcc-4.8.4 the patch saves 19 bytes. No
>> idea what's going on there...
>
> I've done tons of build tests and never got the warning for the variables
> other than m_dirty, and that one also just with very few configurations
> (e.g. ARM omap2plus_defconfig).

Yes, I just got the warning for m_dirty too. Just initialize m_thresh
and m_bg_thresh to keep consistency (not sure if it is necessary). And,
I'm a little bit confused why gcc just reports m_dirty but ignore others.

>
> How about initializing only m_dirty but not the others?

Fine to me.

Thanks,
Yang

>
> Arnd
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-18 19:01    [W:0.057 / U:1.112 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site