Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751025AbdHaKao (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:30:44 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42642 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750757AbdHaKam (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:30:42 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 62AB6C047B71 Authentication-Results: ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=bfoster@redhat.com Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:30:41 -0400 From: Brian Foster To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , David Chinner , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the xfs tree Message-ID: <20170831103040.GB21508@bfoster.bfoster> References: <20170831100703.16eeb69f@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170831100703.16eeb69f@canb.auug.org.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.31]); Thu, 31 Aug 2017 10:30:42 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1816 Lines: 53 On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:07:03AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > After merging the xfs tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc > ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning: > > fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c: In function 'xfs_buf_item_unlock': > fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c:573:9: warning: unused variable 'ordered' [-Wunused-variable] > bool ordered = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED); > ^ > > Introduced by commit > > a097077ef708 ("xfs: remove unnecessary dirty bli format check for ordered bufs") > Ugh, this is due to the refactoring of this patch between v1 and v2. I specifically recall testing for this in v1 because I added the ordered bool purely to clean up the ASSERT(), then I apparently lost of track of it for v2. Anyways.. Christoph, Darrick, preferences to clean this up..? I have no preference between the v1 or v2 factoring. Or if it's easier, we could always just drop something like the hunk below on top. Thoughts? Brian --- 8< --- diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c index ef2c137..f5d25f5 100644 --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c @@ -567,10 +567,15 @@ xfs_buf_item_unlock( { struct xfs_buf_log_item *bip = BUF_ITEM(lip); struct xfs_buf *bp = bip->bli_buf; - bool aborted = !!(lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_ABORTED); - bool hold = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_HOLD); - bool dirty = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_DIRTY); - bool ordered = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED); + bool aborted; + bool hold; + bool dirty; + bool ordered; + + aborted = !!(lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_ABORTED); + hold = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_HOLD); + dirty = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_DIRTY); + ordered = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED); /* Clear the buffer's association with this transaction. */ bp->b_transp = NULL;