Trond Myklebust wrote: On Mon, 2011-10-31 at 22:42 -0400, Jim Rees wrote: > Trond Myklebust wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-10-31 at 21:37 -0400, Jim Rees wrote: > > I think this is still needed, isn't it? I haven't tried compiling > > nfs-for-next but I don't see a fix for it in there. > > AFAICS, this is a bogus warning: if lo is uninitialised, we will > automatically exit with a return value of NFS4ERR_NOMATCHING_LAYOUT. > > Yes, the warning is bogus. I just want the damn compiler to shut up so I > can see if there are any real warnings. How about cleaning up the whole unnecessary "bool found" crap that has it confused? You can easily replace that with a test for 'ino != NULL'. We don't usually "fix" compiler bugs by changing valid kernel code, but cleanups are acceptable if they help to clarify what is going on. Oh, another thing: that code will currently race very nicely against 'umount', and looks capable of triggering the 'VFS: Busy inodes after unmount of foo. Self-destruct in 5 seconds. Have a nice day..." since it doesn't do anything to pin the super block while holding a reference to the inode. There's a patch in Benny's tree that I think addresses these issues in addition to the compiler warnings. Maybe Benny would like to move it forward? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
