On Fri, 2018-12-28 at 10:36 -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: +AD4 +AD4 On Dec 20, 2018, at 4:49 AM, YueHaibing +ADw-yuehaibing+AEA-huawei.com+AD4 wrote: +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 smatch warning this: +AD4 +AD4 net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc+AF8-rdma+AF8-rw.c:351 svc+AF8-rdma+AF8-post+AF8-chunk+AF8-ctxt() error: uninitialized symbol 'bad+AF8-wr' +AD4 +AD4 net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/verbs.c:1569 rpcrdma+AF8-post+AF8-recvs() error: uninitialized symbol 'bad+AF8-wr' +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 'bad+AF8-wr' is initialized in ib+AF8-post+AF8-send. But smatch +AD4 +AD4 doesn't know that and warns this. +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 Signed-off-by: YueHaibing +ADw-yuehaibing+AEA-huawei.com+AD4 +AD4 +AD4 --- +AD4 +AD4 net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc+AF8-rdma+AF8-rw.c +AHw 2 +-- +AD4 +AD4 net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/verbs.c +AHw 2 +-- +AD4 +AD4 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+-), 2 deletions(-) +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc+AF8-rdma+AF8-rw.c b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc+AF8-rdma+AF8-rw.c +AD4 +AD4 index dc19517..0954b25 100644 +AD4 +AD4 --- a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc+AF8-rdma+AF8-rw.c +AD4 +AD4 +-+-+- b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc+AF8-rdma+AF8-rw.c +AD4 +AD4 +AEAAQA -308,7 +-308,7 +AEAAQA static int svc+AF8-rdma+AF8-post+AF8-chunk+AF8-ctxt(struct svc+AF8-rdma+AF8-chunk+AF8-ctxt +ACo-cc) +AD4 +AD4 struct svcxprt+AF8-rdma +ACo-rdma +AD0 cc-+AD4-cc+AF8-rdma+ADs +AD4 +AD4 struct svc+AF8-xprt +ACo-xprt +AD0 +ACY-rdma-+AD4-sc+AF8-xprt+ADs +AD4 +AD4 struct ib+AF8-send+AF8-wr +ACo-first+AF8-wr+ADs +AD4 +AD4 - const struct ib+AF8-send+AF8-wr +ACo-bad+AF8-wr+ADs +AD4 +AD4 +- const struct ib+AF8-send+AF8-wr +ACo-bad+AF8-wr +AD0 NULL+ADs +AD4 +AD4 struct list+AF8-head +ACo-tmp+ADs +AD4 +AD4 struct ib+AF8-cqe +ACo-cqe+ADs +AD4 +AD4 int ret+ADs +AD4 +AD4 diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/verbs.c b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/verbs.c +AD4 +AD4 index 3ddba94..37be70f 100644 +AD4 +AD4 --- a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/verbs.c +AD4 +AD4 +-+-+- b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/verbs.c +AD4 +AD4 +AEAAQA -1518,7 +-1518,7 +AEAAQA void +AD4 +AD4 rpcrdma+AF8-post+AF8-recvs(struct rpcrdma+AF8-xprt +ACo-r+AF8-xprt, bool temp) +AD4 +AD4 +AHs +AD4 +AD4 struct rpcrdma+AF8-buffer +ACo-buf +AD0 +ACY-r+AF8-xprt-+AD4-rx+AF8-buf+ADs +AD4 +AD4 - struct ib+AF8-recv+AF8-wr +ACo-wr, +ACo-bad+AF8-wr+ADs +AD4 +AD4 +- struct ib+AF8-recv+AF8-wr +ACo-wr, +ACo-bad+AF8-wr +AD0 NULL+ADs +AD4 +AD4 int needed, count, rc+ADs +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 rc +AD0 0+ADs +AD4 +AD4 -- +AD4 +AD4 2.7.0 +AD4 +AD4 Does this need +AD4 +AD4 Fixes: d34ac5cd3a73 (+ACI-RDMA, core and ULPs: Declare ib+AF8-post+AF8-send() and ib+AF8-post+AF8-recv() arguments const+ACI) ??? +AD4 +AD4 Bart, any comments? Hi Chuck, My understanding is that the +ACI-Fixes:+ACI tag should only be used for patches that fix bugs. Since this patch addresses a false positive warning reported by smatch I think that it would be misleading to use the +ACI-Fixes:+ACI tag. Before proceeding with this patch, I think that smatch should be improved. The following patch namely was not sufficient to suppress the xprtrdma warning reported by smatch: diff --git a/include/rdma/ib+AF8-verbs.h b/include/rdma/ib+AF8-verbs.h index a3ceed3a040a..498eaa245d1a 100644 --- a/include/rdma/ib+AF8-verbs.h +-+-+- b/include/rdma/ib+AF8-verbs.h +AEAAQA -3327,9 +-3327,16 +AEAAQA static inline int ib+AF8-post+AF8-srq+AF8-recv(struct ib+AF8-srq +ACo-srq, const struct ib+AF8-recv+AF8-wr +ACoAKg-bad+AF8-recv+AF8-wr) +AHs const struct ib+AF8-recv+AF8-wr +ACo-dummy+ADs - - return srq-+AD4-device-+AD4-ops.post+AF8-srq+AF8-recv(srq, recv+AF8-wr, - bad+AF8-recv+AF8-wr ? : +ACY-dummy)+ADs +- int ret+ADs +- +- ret +AD0 srq-+AD4-device-+AD4-ops.post+AF8-srq+AF8-recv(srq, recv+AF8-wr, +- bad+AF8-recv+AF8-wr ? : +ACY-dummy)+ADs +-+ACM-ifdef +AF8AXw-CHECKER+AF8AXw +- /+ACo Tell static analyzers that +ACo-bad+AF8-send+AF8-wr is initialized if ret +ACEAPQ 0 +ACo-/ +- if (ret +ACYAJg bad+AF8-send+AF8-wr) +- +ACo-bad+AF8-send+AF8-wr +AD0 +ACo-bad+AF8-send+AF8-wr+ADs +-+ACM-endif +- return ret+ADs +AH0 /+ACoAKg +AEAAQA -3431,8 +-3438,15 +AEAAQA static inline int ib+AF8-post+AF8-send(struct ib+AF8-qp +ACo-qp, const struct ib+AF8-send+AF8-wr +ACoAKg-bad+AF8-send+AF8-wr) +AHs const struct ib+AF8-send+AF8-wr +ACo-dummy+ADs +- int ret+ADs - return qp-+AD4-device-+AD4-ops.post+AF8-send(qp, send+AF8-wr, bad+AF8-send+AF8-wr ? : +ACY-dummy)+ADs +- ret +AD0 qp-+AD4-device-+AD4-ops.post+AF8-send(qp, send+AF8-wr, bad+AF8-send+AF8-wr ? : +ACY-dummy)+ADs +-+ACM-ifdef +AF8AXw-CHECKER+AF8AXw +- /+ACo Tell static analyzers that +ACo-bad+AF8-send+AF8-wr is initialized if ret +ACEAPQ 0 +ACo-/ +- if (ret +ACYAJg bad+AF8-send+AF8-wr) +- +ACo-bad+AF8-send+AF8-wr +AD0 +ACo-bad+AF8-send+AF8-wr+ADs +-+ACM-endif +- return ret+ADs +AH0 /+ACoAKg +AEAAQA -3448,8 +-3462,15 +AEAAQA static inline int ib+AF8-post+AF8-recv(struct ib+AF8-qp +ACo-qp, const struct ib+AF8-recv+AF8-wr +ACoAKg-bad+AF8-recv+AF8-wr) +AHs const struct ib+AF8-recv+AF8-wr +ACo-dummy+ADs +- int ret+ADs - return qp-+AD4-device-+AD4-ops.post+AF8-recv(qp, recv+AF8-wr, bad+AF8-recv+AF8-wr ? : +ACY-dummy)+ADs +- ret +AD0 qp-+AD4-device-+AD4-ops.post+AF8-recv(qp, recv+AF8-wr, bad+AF8-recv+AF8-wr ? : +ACY-dummy)+ADs +-+ACM-ifdef +AF8AXw-CHECKER+AF8AXw +- /+ACo Tell static analyzers that +ACo-bad+AF8-send+AF8-wr is initialized if ret +ACEAPQ 0 +ACo-/ +- if (ret +ACYAJg bad+AF8-send+AF8-wr) +- +ACo-bad+AF8-send+AF8-wr +AD0 +ACo-bad+AF8-send+AF8-wr+ADs +-+ACM-endif +- return ret+ADs +AH0 struct ib+AF8-cq +ACoAXwBf-ib+AF8-alloc+AF8-cq(struct ib+AF8-device +ACo-dev, void +ACo-private, Bart.
