lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 6/8]i2c:i2c_core Fix warning: variable 'dummy' set but not used
On 06/14/2010 01:53 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Justin,
>
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:26:46 -0700, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
>> could be a right solution, could be wrong
>> here is the warning:
>> CC drivers/i2c/i2c-core.o
>> drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c: In function 'i2c_register_adapter':
>> drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c:757:15: warning: variable 'dummy' set but not used
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Justin P. Mattock<justinmattock@gmail.com>
>>
>> ---
>> drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c | 2 ++
>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
>> index 1cca263..79c6c26 100644
>> --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
>> @@ -794,6 +794,8 @@ static int i2c_register_adapter(struct i2c_adapter *adap)
>> mutex_lock(&core_lock);
>> dummy = bus_for_each_drv(&i2c_bus_type, NULL, adap,
>> __process_new_adapter);
>> + if(!dummy)
>> + dummy = 0;
>
> One word: scripts/checkpatch.pl
>
> In other news, the above is just plain wrong. First we force people to
> read the result of bus_for_each_drv() and then when they do and don't
> need the value, gcc complains, so we add one more layer of useless
> code, which developers and possibly tools will later wonder and
> complain about? I can easily imagine that a static code analyzer would
> spot the above code as being a potential bug.
>
> Let's stop this madness now please.
>
> Either __must_check goes away from bus_for_each_drv() and from every
> other function which raises this problem, or we must disable that new
> type of warning gcc 4.6.0 generates. Depends which warnings we value
> more, as we can't sanely have both.
>

That is the crux of the whole thing. Putting in crap to get rid of the
__must_check warning someone obviously wanted to provoke is just plain
wrong.

I don't know what the answer is, but in addition to your suggestion of
removing the __must_check, you might try:

BUG_ON(dummy != WHAT_IT_SHOULD_BE);

or

if (dummy != WHAT_IT_SHOULD_BE)
panic("nice message here);

or

static inline void i_really_know_what_i_am_doing(int arg)
{
/*
* Trick the compiler because we don't want to
* handle error conditions.
*/
return;
}
.
.
.

i_really_know_what_i_am_doing(dummy);



David Daney



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-14 23:31    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans