Hi Andrew,
After merging the akpm-current tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
allmodconfig) produced these warnings:
fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c: In function 'dlm_free_dead_locks':
fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c:2306:6: warning: unused variable 'i' [-Wunused-variable]
int i;
^
fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c:2305:20: warning: unused variable 'queue' [-Wunused-variable]
struct list_head *queue = NULL;
^
Caused by commit
d09f2c6cf3b8 ("ocfs2: re-queue AST or BAST if sending is failed to improve the reliability")
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Hi Andrew,
On 2017/8/24 15:42, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Andrew, After merging the akpm-current tree, today's linux-next
> build (x86_64 allmodconfig) produced these warnings:
> fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c: In function 'dlm_free_dead_locks':
> fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c:2306:6: warning: unused variable 'i'
> [-Wunused-variable] int i; ^ fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c:2305:20:
> warning: unused variable 'queue' [-Wunused-variable] struct list_head
> *queue = NULL; ^
My patch never defines these two variables, it's strange that they are
defined within the patch you collected.
Could you please help to check if this patch comes from mail '[PATCH]
ocfs2: re-queue AST or BAST if sending is failed to improve the
reliability' sent on 7, August.
Thanks,
Changwei
> Caused by commit
>
> d09f2c6cf3b8 ("ocfs2: re-queue AST or BAST if sending is failed to improve the reliability")
>
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 08:15:30 +0000 Changwei Ge <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 2017/8/24 15:42, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Andrew, After merging the akpm-current tree, today's linux-next
> > build (x86_64 allmodconfig) produced these warnings:
> > fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c: In function 'dlm_free_dead_locks':
> > fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c:2306:6: warning: unused variable 'i'
> > [-Wunused-variable] int i; ^ fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c:2305:20:
> > warning: unused variable 'queue' [-Wunused-variable] struct list_head
> > *queue = NULL; ^
> My patch never defines these two variables, it's strange that they are
> defined within the patch you collected.
> Could you please help to check if this patch comes from mail '[PATCH]
> ocfs2: re-queue AST or BAST if sending is failed to improve the
> reliability' sent on 7, August.
Yes, I'm not at all sure how those lines got there.
Problem is, the patch you sent was wordwrapped and had its tabs
replaced with spaces. So I had to do quite a lot of work on it to make
it usable. Evidently I somehow added those lines in the process.
Please carefully check that
http://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/ocfs2-re-queue-ast-or-bast-if-sending-is-failed-to-improve-the-reliability.patch
plus
--- a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c~ocfs2-re-queue-ast-or-bast-if-sending-is-failed-to-improve-the-reliability-fix
+++ a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c
@@ -2302,8 +2302,6 @@ static void dlm_free_dead_locks(struct d
struct dlm_lock *lock, *next;
unsigned int freed = 0;
int reserved_tmp = 0;
- struct list_head *queue = NULL;
- int i;
/* this node is the lockres master:
* 1) remove any stale locks for the dead node
produce the correct result.
And please appropriately configure your email client for next time!
Hi Andrew,
On 2017/8/26 5:24, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 08:15:30 +0000 Changwei Ge <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> On 2017/8/24 15:42, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi Andrew, After merging the akpm-current tree, today's linux-next
>>> build (x86_64 allmodconfig) produced these warnings:
>>> fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c: In function 'dlm_free_dead_locks':
>>> fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c:2306:6: warning: unused variable 'i'
>>> [-Wunused-variable] int i; ^ fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c:2305:20:
>>> warning: unused variable 'queue' [-Wunused-variable] struct list_head
>>> *queue = NULL; ^
>> My patch never defines these two variables, it's strange that they are
>> defined within the patch you collected.
>> Could you please help to check if this patch comes from mail '[PATCH]
>> ocfs2: re-queue AST or BAST if sending is failed to improve the
>> reliability' sent on 7, August.
> Yes, I'm not at all sure how those lines got there.
>
> Problem is, the patch you sent was wordwrapped and had its tabs
> replaced with spaces. So I had to do quite a lot of work on it to make
> it usable. Evidently I somehow added those lines in the process.
>
> Please carefully check that
>
> http://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/ocfs2-re-queue-ast-or-bast-if-sending-is-failed-to-improve-the-reliability.patch
>
> plus
>
> --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c~ocfs2-re-queue-ast-or-bast-if-sending-is-failed-to-improve-the-reliability-fix
> +++ a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c
> @@ -2302,8 +2302,6 @@ static void dlm_free_dead_locks(struct d
> struct dlm_lock *lock, *next;
> unsigned int freed = 0;
> int reserved_tmp = 0;
> - struct list_head *queue = NULL;
> - int i;
>
> /* this node is the lockres master:
> * 1) remove any stale locks for the dead node
>
> produce the correct result.
>
> And please appropriately configure your email client for next time!
Sorry for the trouble my patch made, I will check my email client
configuration.
Thanks,
Changwei
>