On Tuesday 15 March 2016 14:49:14 James Bottomley wrote: > On Tue, 2016-03-15 at 22:40 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > This slightly rearranges the code to move the second if() block > > into the first one, to avoid the warning while retaining the > > behavior of the code. > > I thought our usual policy was to ask someone to fix the compiler when > it emitted a spurious warning. No, the rule is that we shouldn't blindly add initializations to the variables when the compiler should have figured it out. In this case, I wouldn't expect the compiler to ever see through the unlikely() macro, and I'm not adding a potentially counterproductive initialization, so I see no reason not to apply the patch. Making it easier for the compiler to figure out what is going on should also lead to slightly better object code. If you think my patch makes it less readable, an alternative would be to remove the 'unlikely', which also gets rid of the warning. Arnd -- 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
