Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1723750 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-31 02:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-08-31 23:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 6 — 4 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
linux-next: build warning after merge of the xfs tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-08-31 02:10 +0200
Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the xfs tree Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com> - 2017-08-31 12:40 +0200
Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the xfs tree "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com> - 2017-08-31 17:00 +0200
Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the xfs tree Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com> - 2017-08-31 17:30 +0200
Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the xfs tree "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com> - 2017-08-31 17:50 +0200
Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the xfs tree Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> - 2017-08-31 23:40 +0200
| From | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 02:10 +0200 |
| Subject | linux-next: build warning after merge of the xfs tree |
| Message-ID | <ukldw-6KE-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Hi all,
After merging the xfs tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning:
fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c: In function 'xfs_buf_item_unlock':
fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c:573:9: warning: unused variable 'ordered' [-Wunused-variable]
bool ordered = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED);
^
Introduced by commit
a097077ef708 ("xfs: remove unnecessary dirty bli format check for ordered bufs")
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 12:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ukv3c-4rE-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1723750 |
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:07:03AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the xfs tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning:
>
> fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c: In function 'xfs_buf_item_unlock':
> fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c:573:9: warning: unused variable 'ordered' [-Wunused-variable]
> bool ordered = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED);
> ^
>
> Introduced by commit
>
> a097077ef708 ("xfs: remove unnecessary dirty bli format check for ordered bufs")
>
Ugh, this is due to the refactoring of this patch between v1 and v2. I
specifically recall testing for this in v1 because I added the ordered
bool purely to clean up the ASSERT(), then I apparently lost of track of
it for v2.
Anyways.. Christoph, Darrick, preferences to clean this up..? I have no
preference between the v1 or v2 factoring. Or if it's easier, we could
always just drop something like the hunk below on top. Thoughts?
Brian
--- 8< ---
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
index ef2c137..f5d25f5 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
@@ -567,10 +567,15 @@ xfs_buf_item_unlock(
{
struct xfs_buf_log_item *bip = BUF_ITEM(lip);
struct xfs_buf *bp = bip->bli_buf;
- bool aborted = !!(lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_ABORTED);
- bool hold = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_HOLD);
- bool dirty = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_DIRTY);
- bool ordered = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED);
+ bool aborted;
+ bool hold;
+ bool dirty;
+ bool ordered;
+
+ aborted = !!(lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_ABORTED);
+ hold = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_HOLD);
+ dirty = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_DIRTY);
+ ordered = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED);
/* Clear the buffer's association with this transaction. */
bp->b_transp = NULL;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 17:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ukz6N-6TE-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1724088 |
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 06:30:41AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:07:03AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > After merging the xfs tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> > ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning:
> >
> > fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c: In function 'xfs_buf_item_unlock':
> > fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c:573:9: warning: unused variable 'ordered' [-Wunused-variable]
> > bool ordered = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED);
> > ^
> >
> > Introduced by commit
> >
> > a097077ef708 ("xfs: remove unnecessary dirty bli format check for ordered bufs")
> >
>
> Ugh, this is due to the refactoring of this patch between v1 and v2. I
> specifically recall testing for this in v1 because I added the ordered
> bool purely to clean up the ASSERT(), then I apparently lost of track of
> it for v2.
>
> Anyways.. Christoph, Darrick, preferences to clean this up..? I have no
> preference between the v1 or v2 factoring. Or if it's easier, we could
> always just drop something like the hunk below on top. Thoughts?
>
> Brian
>
> --- 8< ---
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
> index ef2c137..f5d25f5 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
> @@ -567,10 +567,15 @@ xfs_buf_item_unlock(
> {
> struct xfs_buf_log_item *bip = BUF_ITEM(lip);
> struct xfs_buf *bp = bip->bli_buf;
> - bool aborted = !!(lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_ABORTED);
> - bool hold = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_HOLD);
> - bool dirty = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_DIRTY);
> - bool ordered = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED);
> + bool aborted;
> + bool hold;
> + bool dirty;
> + bool ordered;
> +
> + aborted = !!(lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_ABORTED);
> + hold = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_HOLD);
> + dirty = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_DIRTY);
> + ordered = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED);
The trouble is, 'ordered' is still an unused variable on !DEBUG builds,
since the only user of ordered is that ASSERT. So either we #ifdef
DEBUG the variable out of existence or employ one of those silly
'ordered = ordered' constructions to shut up gcc, if that even still
works.
--D
>
> /* Clear the buffer's association with this transaction. */
> bp->b_transp = NULL;
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 17:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ukzzP-7k7-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1724294 |
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 07:57:52AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 06:30:41AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:07:03AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > After merging the xfs tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> > > ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning:
> > >
> > > fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c: In function 'xfs_buf_item_unlock':
> > > fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c:573:9: warning: unused variable 'ordered' [-Wunused-variable]
> > > bool ordered = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED);
> > > ^
> > >
> > > Introduced by commit
> > >
> > > a097077ef708 ("xfs: remove unnecessary dirty bli format check for ordered bufs")
> > >
> >
> > Ugh, this is due to the refactoring of this patch between v1 and v2. I
> > specifically recall testing for this in v1 because I added the ordered
> > bool purely to clean up the ASSERT(), then I apparently lost of track of
> > it for v2.
> >
> > Anyways.. Christoph, Darrick, preferences to clean this up..? I have no
> > preference between the v1 or v2 factoring. Or if it's easier, we could
> > always just drop something like the hunk below on top. Thoughts?
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > --- 8< ---
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
> > index ef2c137..f5d25f5 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
> > @@ -567,10 +567,15 @@ xfs_buf_item_unlock(
> > {
> > struct xfs_buf_log_item *bip = BUF_ITEM(lip);
> > struct xfs_buf *bp = bip->bli_buf;
> > - bool aborted = !!(lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_ABORTED);
> > - bool hold = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_HOLD);
> > - bool dirty = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_DIRTY);
> > - bool ordered = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED);
> > + bool aborted;
> > + bool hold;
> > + bool dirty;
> > + bool ordered;
> > +
> > + aborted = !!(lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_ABORTED);
> > + hold = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_HOLD);
> > + dirty = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_DIRTY);
> > + ordered = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED);
>
> The trouble is, 'ordered' is still an unused variable on !DEBUG builds,
> since the only user of ordered is that ASSERT. So either we #ifdef
> DEBUG the variable out of existence or employ one of those silly
> 'ordered = ordered' constructions to shut up gcc, if that even still
> works.
>
The warning goes away for me if we separate the initialization of
ordered from the declaration. Do you observe otherwise?
Brian
> --D
>
> >
> > /* Clear the buffer's association with this transaction. */
> > bp->b_transp = NULL;
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 17:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ukzTd-7qZ-47@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1724319 |
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:22:20AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 07:57:52AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 06:30:41AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:07:03AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > After merging the xfs tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> > > > ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning:
> > > >
> > > > fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c: In function 'xfs_buf_item_unlock':
> > > > fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c:573:9: warning: unused variable 'ordered' [-Wunused-variable]
> > > > bool ordered = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED);
> > > > ^
> > > >
> > > > Introduced by commit
> > > >
> > > > a097077ef708 ("xfs: remove unnecessary dirty bli format check for ordered bufs")
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ugh, this is due to the refactoring of this patch between v1 and v2. I
> > > specifically recall testing for this in v1 because I added the ordered
> > > bool purely to clean up the ASSERT(), then I apparently lost of track of
> > > it for v2.
> > >
> > > Anyways.. Christoph, Darrick, preferences to clean this up..? I have no
> > > preference between the v1 or v2 factoring. Or if it's easier, we could
> > > always just drop something like the hunk below on top. Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Brian
> > >
> > > --- 8< ---
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
> > > index ef2c137..f5d25f5 100644
> > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
> > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
> > > @@ -567,10 +567,15 @@ xfs_buf_item_unlock(
> > > {
> > > struct xfs_buf_log_item *bip = BUF_ITEM(lip);
> > > struct xfs_buf *bp = bip->bli_buf;
> > > - bool aborted = !!(lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_ABORTED);
> > > - bool hold = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_HOLD);
> > > - bool dirty = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_DIRTY);
> > > - bool ordered = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED);
> > > + bool aborted;
> > > + bool hold;
> > > + bool dirty;
> > > + bool ordered;
> > > +
> > > + aborted = !!(lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_ABORTED);
> > > + hold = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_HOLD);
> > > + dirty = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_DIRTY);
> > > + ordered = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED);
> >
> > The trouble is, 'ordered' is still an unused variable on !DEBUG builds,
> > since the only user of ordered is that ASSERT. So either we #ifdef
> > DEBUG the variable out of existence or employ one of those silly
> > 'ordered = ordered' constructions to shut up gcc, if that even still
> > works.
> >
>
> The warning goes away for me if we separate the initialization of
> ordered from the declaration. Do you observe otherwise?
Hm. Seems to shut up gcc, so I guess it's fine. In the past it would
whine, but I guess they fixed it or something.
Want to send it as a real [PATCH]?
--D
>
> Brian
>
> > --D
> >
> > >
> > > /* Clear the buffer's association with this transaction. */
> > > bp->b_transp = NULL;
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 23:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ukFlT-2Gx-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1724319 |
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:22:20AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 07:57:52AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 06:30:41AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:07:03AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > After merging the xfs tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> > > > ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning:
> > > >
> > > > fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c: In function 'xfs_buf_item_unlock':
> > > > fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c:573:9: warning: unused variable 'ordered' [-Wunused-variable]
> > > > bool ordered = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED);
> > > > ^
> > > >
> > > > Introduced by commit
> > > >
> > > > a097077ef708 ("xfs: remove unnecessary dirty bli format check for ordered bufs")
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ugh, this is due to the refactoring of this patch between v1 and v2. I
> > > specifically recall testing for this in v1 because I added the ordered
> > > bool purely to clean up the ASSERT(), then I apparently lost of track of
> > > it for v2.
> > >
> > > Anyways.. Christoph, Darrick, preferences to clean this up..? I have no
> > > preference between the v1 or v2 factoring. Or if it's easier, we could
> > > always just drop something like the hunk below on top. Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Brian
> > >
> > > --- 8< ---
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
> > > index ef2c137..f5d25f5 100644
> > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
> > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
> > > @@ -567,10 +567,15 @@ xfs_buf_item_unlock(
> > > {
> > > struct xfs_buf_log_item *bip = BUF_ITEM(lip);
> > > struct xfs_buf *bp = bip->bli_buf;
> > > - bool aborted = !!(lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_ABORTED);
> > > - bool hold = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_HOLD);
> > > - bool dirty = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_DIRTY);
> > > - bool ordered = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED);
> > > + bool aborted;
> > > + bool hold;
> > > + bool dirty;
> > > + bool ordered;
> > > +
> > > + aborted = !!(lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_ABORTED);
> > > + hold = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_HOLD);
> > > + dirty = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_DIRTY);
> > > + ordered = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED);
> >
> > The trouble is, 'ordered' is still an unused variable on !DEBUG builds,
> > since the only user of ordered is that ASSERT. So either we #ifdef
> > DEBUG the variable out of existence or employ one of those silly
> > 'ordered = ordered' constructions to shut up gcc, if that even still
> > works.
> >
>
> The warning goes away for me if we separate the initialization of
> ordered from the declaration. Do you observe otherwise?
Various versions of gcc will throw set-but-unused warnings on
this. Just #define it away or factor the debug code into another
function.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web