On 03/21/2012 06:35 AM, John Kacur wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Darren Hart <dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The status variable is not used. Remove it and avoid the warning from gcc.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> CC: Clark Williams <williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> CC: John Kacur <jkacur@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> src/pi_tests/pi_stress.c | 3 +--
>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/pi_tests/pi_stress.c b/src/pi_tests/pi_stress.c
>> index 0940567..b89dec8 100644
>> --- a/src/pi_tests/pi_stress.c
>> +++ b/src/pi_tests/pi_stress.c
>> @@ -596,10 +596,9 @@ void *reporter(void *arg)
>>
>> int verify_cpu(int cpu)
>> {
>> - int status;
>> cpu_set_t mask;
>>
>> - status = sched_getaffinity(0, sizeof(cpu_set_t), &mask);
>> + sched_getaffinity(0, sizeof(cpu_set_t), &mask);
>>
>> if (CPU_ISSET(cpu, &mask))
>> return SUCCESS;
>> --
>
> Don't you think it would be smarter to test the return status of
> sched_getaffinity, than to shut-up the warning by removing the status
> variable? I say we leave the variable in to remind us that we're not
> finished.
>
My view was that rather than test status, we are testing the cpu mask
explicitly. That should pick up any error.
--
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
