Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 18:48:28 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20121119.184828.628106002307042971.davem@davemloft.net>
To: paolo.valente@unimore.it
Cc: jhs@mojatatu.com, shemminger@vyatta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, rizzo@iet.unipi.it, fchecconi@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: QFQ Plus: fair-queueing service at DRR cost
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20121112164833.GA12970@paolo-ThinkPad-W520>
References: <20121112164833.GA12970@paolo-ThinkPad-W520>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-7
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Length: 1034
Lines: 22

From: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@unimore.it>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:48:33 +0100

> [This patch received positive feedback from Stephen Hemminger ("put in
> net-next"), but no further feedback or decision. So I am (re)sending
> an updated version of it. The only differences with respect to the
> previous version are the support for TSO/GSO (taken from QFQ), and a
> hopefully improved description.]

Can you rearrange the logic so that the compiler doesn't emit this
warning?

In file included from net/sched/sch_qfq.c:18:0:
net/sched/sch_qfq.c: In function ?qfq_dequeue?:
include/net/sch_generic.h:480:15: warning: ?skb? may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
net/sched/sch_qfq.c:1007:18: note: ?skb? was declared here

You and I both know that SKB will be initialized at this point, but
the compiler can't see it clearly enough.

Thanks.
????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay?ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m????????????I?