On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 06:27:41AM -0600, Alex Elder wrote:
> On 02/13/2014 06:04 AM, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Dan Carpenter
> > <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Hello Yehuda Sadeh,
> >>
> >> The patch 59c2be1e4d42: "rbd: use watch/notify for changes in rbd
> >> header" from Mar 21, 2011, leads to the following static checker
> >> warning:
> >>
> >> drivers/block/rbd.c:687 parse_rbd_opts_token()
> >> warn: we tested 'token < 0' before and it was 'false'
> >>
> >> drivers/block/rbd.c
> >> 677 static int parse_rbd_opts_token(char *c, void *private)
> >> 678 {
> >> 679 struct rbd_options *rbd_opts = private;
> >> 680 substring_t argstr[MAX_OPT_ARGS];
> >> 681 int token, intval, ret;
> >> 682
> >> 683 token = match_token(c, rbd_opts_tokens, argstr);
> >> 684 if (token < 0)
> >> ^^^^^^^^^
> >> 685 return -EINVAL;
> >> 686
> >> 687 if (token < Opt_last_int) {
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> Opt_last_int is zero so this is never true. Should the < be == or
> >> something?
> >
> > Probably not. It's there in case an integer option gets added to rbd
> > in the future. See parse_fsopt_token() and the enums above it in
> > fs/ceph/super.c.
>
> Yes, that's correct. There were once integer options and this
> code is a holdover from that time.
>
> I think it should remain in case it's needed, but it could be
> #ifdef'd or something. (Or we could do some magic to get the
> warning to go away.)
>
> -Alex
These warnings are a one time thing. No need for ifdefs.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
