Message-ID: <48F6DA77.7090303@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:08:55 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20071114)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Elias Oltmanns <eo@nebensachen.de>
CC: Alex Chiang <achiang@hp.com>, jeff@redhat.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] stop gcc warning about uninitialized 'dev' in	ata_scsi_scan_host
References: <20081015232505.GB9272@ldl.fc.hp.com>	<48F6A2E7.5090005@kernel.org> <20081016034042.GA27621@ldl.fc.hp.com>	<48F6BAFE.6080106@kernel.org> <87r66hjcwv.fsf@denkblock.local>
In-Reply-To: <87r66hjcwv.fsf@denkblock.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1957
Lines: 48

Elias Oltmanns wrote:
>> I think the current policy is blaming gcc but I also added quite a few
>> bogus NULL initializations here and there and caught several bugs thanks
>> to those warnings.  We can think about adding an additional annotation
>> with leading double underbars which indicate that certain pointer
>> arguments to functions expect (or are okay with) pointers to
>> uninitialized variables which should be able to remove many of those
>> spurious warnings (on the caller side, the compiler can ignore the
>> warning and on the callee side the compiler can check whether it's being
>> dereferenced without being written to).  Does anyone know whether gcc
>> already has that type of annotation?
> 
> Well, I don't know of this particular kind of annotation. However, I
> don't quite see how that would solve the reported issue.

I was thinking about the warning in sata_via.c and for such cases the
compiler doesn't have any other way of figuring out whether it's okay
or not (the sata_via case, the compiler can actually do as the callee
is in the same file but you know what I mean).

> Here, dev is a local variable and the warning is generated due to
> the line
> 
> 		if (dev != last_failed_dev) {
> 
> For this sort of thing we have:
> 
> 	struct ata_device *uninitialized_var(dev);

Ah.. thanks.

> Or is that precisely the thing you did *not* want?

I don't know.  Later versions of gcc doesn't issue warning because it
knows "if (!link)" always triggers if dev is not initialized.  I don't
think we should be adding those annotations if the current gen
compiler can already figure that out as it only decreases
debuggability when something actually gets broken there.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/