From: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 09:30:31AM +0100 > On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 10:13:22AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > > > - bio = do_mpage_readpage(bio, page, 1, &last_block_in_bio, > > > > > + bio = do_mpage_readpage(NULL, page, 1, &last_block_in_bio, > > > Right, the uninitialized warning above happens when you remove the NULL > > assignment, i.e. > > > > struct bio *bio; > > > > ... > > > > bio = do_mpage_readpage(bio, ...) > > WTF? His patch does *NOT* leave you with bio = do_mpage_readpage(bio, ...), > it replaces that with bio = do_mpage_readpage(NULL, ...). > > Which variant has produced a warning? > > > But(!), in the mpage_readpage(), bio _absolutely_ has to be NULL because > > it is checked if being so later in do_mpage_readpage(), so this one is a > > complete different story. > > > > To cut a long story short, you're correct, gcc is b0rked when warning > > about passing addresses of variables to functions which only write to > > them. > > To make it even shorter, you've misapplied the patch. Correct? Yes. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
