2013/9/20 Paul Bolle <pebolle@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 23:49 +0900, Akinobu Mita wrote: >> 2013/8/22 James Bottomley <jbottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> > On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 21:42 +0900, Akinobu Mita wrote: >> >> Unfortunately, this warning isn't fixed in linux-next, either. >> >> Paul Bolle also sent a patch that fixes the same warning in a little >> >> bit different way. >> > >> > Well, it is and it isn't. Whether you see the warning seems to depend >> > on how gcc was built. My take is that an impossible default case just >> > to keep some versions of gcc quiet is a bit pointless. >> >> As Joe said in the other reply, scsi_debug_guard could be a negative >> value (scsi_debug_guard > 1 is only prohibited). So this warning >> does not seem a false positive. > > I too think that GCC is correct here. Perhaps the people not seeing this > warning don't have CONFIG_SCSI_DEBUG set. > > A week ago Antonia also submitted a patch to silence this warning > ( https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/13/649 ). That's at least the third time > someone tried to silence it since it got introduced in the v3.11 cycle. > > Akinobu, could you please say how you'd like this warning to be > silenced? Or is an actual fix queued somewhere? Yesterday, I sent a patch set which includes two fixes for this issue. I wish this to be merged and I'll do my best. http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=137950732530325&w=2 http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=137950732530326&w=2 The first one prevents scsi_debug_guard from being a negative value by changing the type of scsi_debug_guard to 'unsigned int'. The second one is actually titled sparse warning fix, but it also silences this GCC warning by chaning from switch statement to if/else statements. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
