On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 01:48:48PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Removing the btt_rw_page/pmem_rw_page functions had a surprising
> side-effect of introducing a false-positive warning in another
> function, due to changed inlining decisions in gcc:
>
> In file included from drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c:36:0:
> drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c: In function 'pmem_make_request':
> drivers/nvdimm/nd.h:407:2: error: 'start' may be used uninitialized in this
> function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c:174:16: note: 'start' was declared here
> In file included from drivers/nvdimm/btt.c:27:0:
> drivers/nvdimm/btt.c: In function 'btt_make_request':
> drivers/nvdimm/nd.h:407:2: error: 'start' may be used uninitialized in this
> function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> drivers/nvdimm/btt.c:1202:16: note: 'start' was declared here
>
> The problem is that gcc fails to track the value of the 'do_acct'
> variable here and has to read it back from stack, but it does
> remember that 'start' may be uninitialized sometimes.
>
> This shuts up the warning by making nd_iostat_start() always
> initialize the 'start' variable. In those cases that gcc successfully
> tracks the state of the variable, this will have no effect.
>
> Fixes: 503a5e89b1de ("drivers/nvdimm/btt.c: remove btt_rw_page()")
> Fixes: 58100d6e735e ("drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c: remove pmem_rw_page()")
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de>
This change looks fine:
Reviewed-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwis...@linux.intel.com>
I believe the patches removing the btt_rw_page() and btt_rw_page() are on hold
until I can get some performance numbers to justify them.
Dan, do you want to take this as is, or do you want me to include it in my
larger rw_page() series if/when that gets revived?
