Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Fix backref.c selftest compilation warning
To:     Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>, clm@fb.com,
        josef@toxicpanda.com, dsterba@suse.com
Cc:     linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20200411154915.9408-1-tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com>
 <ea85377e-4648-c174-2827-53173587777c@gmx.com>
From:   Tang Bin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Message-ID: <4b1e57b3-ca0d-f3e0-f4c4-72cdfe943d7a@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Date:   Sun, 12 Apr 2020 11:21:31 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ea85377e-4648-c174-2827-53173587777c@gmx.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Qu:

On 2020/4/12 8:52, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
> On 2020/4/11 下午11:49, Tang Bin wrote:
>> Fix missing braces compilation warning in the ARM
>> compiler environment:
>>      fs/btrfs/backref.c: In function ‘is_shared_data_backref’:
>>      fs/btrfs/backref.c:394:9: warning: missing braces around initializer [-Wmissing-braces]
>>        struct prelim_ref target = {0};
>>      fs/btrfs/backref.c:394:9: warning: (near initialization for ‘target.rbnode’) [-Wmissing-braces]
> GCC version please.
>
> It looks like you're using an older GCC, as it's pretty common certain
> prebuild tool chain is still using outdated GCC.
>
> In my environment with GCC 9.2.0 natively (on aarch64) it's completely fine.
> Thus personally I recommend to build your own tool chain using
> buildroot, or run it natively, other than rely on prebuilt one.

My environment:

   PC : Ubuntu 16.04

   Hardware : I.MX6ULL

   Tool Chain : arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc (Linaro GCC 4.9-2017.01) 4.9.4

>
> In fact your fix could cause problem, as the original code is
> initializing all members to 0, but now it's uninitialized.
>
> You need to locate the root cause other than blindly follow the warning.

In hardware experiment, this approach is feasible.

Thanks.

Tang Bin

>
>