On Tue, Oct 25 2016, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> renyl <yilongx.ren@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> From: Yilong Ren <yilongx.ren@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> To fix the following error info:
>>
>> root@vm-lkp-nex04-8G-7 /tmp/mdadm# make test
>> cc -Wall -Werror -Wstrict-prototypes -Wextra -Wno-unused-parameter -ggdb -DSendmail=\""/usr/sbin/sendmail -t"\" -DCONFFILE=\"/etc/mdadm.conf\" -DCONFFILE2=\"/etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf\" -DMAP_DIR=\"/run/mdadm\" -DMAP_FILE=\"map\" -DMDMON_DIR=\"/run/mdadm\" -DFAILED_SLOTS_DIR=\"/run/mdadm/failed-slots\" -DNO_COROSYNC -DNO_DLM -DVERSION=\"3.4-43-g1dcee1c\" -DVERS_DATE="\"06th April 2016\"" -DUSE_PTHREADS -DBINDIR=\"/sbin\" -c -o raid6check.o raid6check.c
>> raid6check.c: In function 'manual_repair':
>> raid6check.c:267:4: error: this 'else' clause does not guard... [-Werror=misleading-indentation]
>> else
>> ^~~~
>> raid6check.c:269:5: note: ...this statement, but the latter is misleadingly indented as if it is guarded by the 'else'
>> printf("Repairing D(%d) and P\n", failed_data);
>> ^~~~~~
>> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
>> <builtin>: recipe for target 'raid6check.o' failed
>> make: *** [raid6check.o] Error 1
>> root@vm-lkp-nex04-8G-7 /tmp/mdadm#
>>
>>
>> Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: linux-raid <linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: LKP <lkp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Yilong Ren <yilongx.ren@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> raid6check.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/raid6check.c b/raid6check.c
>> index ad7ffe7..acfc9a3 100644
>> --- a/raid6check.c
>> +++ b/raid6check.c
>> @@ -264,9 +264,10 @@ int manual_repair(int chunk_size, int syndrome_disks,
>> int failed_data;
>> if (failed_slot1 == -1)
>> failed_data = failed_slot2;
>> - else
>> + else {
>> failed_data = failed_slot1;
>> printf("Repairing D(%d) and P\n", failed_data);
>> + }
>> raid6_datap_recov(syndrome_disks+2, chunk_size,
>> failed_data, (uint8_t**)blocks, 1);
>> } else {
>
> Hi,
>
> I suspect this patch is wrong and the code is meant to print in either
> case.
>
> Neil?
Looking at the whole
if (failed_slot1 == -2 || failed_slot2 == -2) {
statement it looks like every path through should print a message, and
this section would be more similar to the previous section if, as you
say, the code prints in either case.
So I agree: original code is correct, indentation is wrong.
NeilBrown
>
> Cheers,
> Jes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
