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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
