On 2020/6/15 16:07, Gao Xiang wrote: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 03:43:09PM +0800, Jason Yan wrote: >> >> >> 鍦?2020/6/15 15:25, Gao Xiang 鍐欓亾: >>> Hi Jason, >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 12:01:41PM +0800, Jason Yan wrote: >>>> This is an effort to eliminate the uninitialized_var() macro[1]. >>>> >>>> The use of this macro is the wrong solution because it forces off ANY >>>> analysis by the compiler for a given variable. It even masks "unused >>>> variable" warnings. >>>> >>>> Quoted from Linus[2]: >>>> >>>> "It's a horrible thing to use, in that it adds extra cruft to the >>>> source code, and then shuts up a compiler warning (even the _reliable_ >>>> warnings from gcc)." >>>> >>>> The gcc option "-Wmaybe-uninitialized" has been disabled and this change >>>> will not produce any warnnings even with "make W=1". >>>> >>>> [1] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/81 >>>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFz2500WfbKXAx8s67wrm9=yVJu65TpLgN_ybYNv0VEOKA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >>>> >>>> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Cc: Chao Yu <yuchao0@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Yan <yanaijie@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>> >>> I'm fine with the patch since "-Wmaybe-uninitialized" has been disabled and >>> I've also asked Kees for it in private previously. >>> >>> I still remembered that Kees sent out a treewide patch. Sorry about that >>> I don't catch up it... But what is wrong with the original patchset? >>> >> >> Yes, Kees has remind me of that and I will let him handle it. So you can >> ignore this patch. > > Okay, I was just wondering if this part should be send out via EROFS tree > for this cycle. However if there was an automatic generated patch by Kees, > I think perhaps Linus could pick them out directly. But anyway, both ways > are fine with me. ;) Ping me when needed. Either way is okay to me. Reviewed-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks, > > Thanks, > Gao Xiang > >> >> Thanks, >> Jason >> >>> Thanks, >>> Gao Xiang >>> >>> >>> . >>> >> > > . >
