On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:25:19 +0200
Borislav Petkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Remove build warning mm/memory.c:1491: warning: 'ptl' may be used
> uninitialized in this function.
> The spinlock pointer is assigned to null since it gets overwritten right away
> in
> pte_alloc_map_lock().
>
> Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
>
> Index: linux-mm/mm/memory.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-mm.orig/mm/memory.c 2007-04-26 19:57:14.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-mm/mm/memory.c 2007-04-26 20:00:30.000000000 +0200
> @@ -1488,7 +1488,7 @@
> pte_t *pte;
> int err;
> struct page *pmd_page;
> - spinlock_t *ptl;
> + spinlock_t *ptl = NULL;
>
> pte = (mm == &init_mm) ?
> pte_alloc_kernel(pmd, addr) :
>
yes, I've been staring unhappily at this for some time.
Your change adds seven bytes of text to this function for no runtime
benefit, just to fix a build-time warning. It's a general problem.
Often we just leave the warning in place and curse gcc each time it flies
past. Sometimes the code can be restructured in a sensible fashion to
avoid the warning; often it cannot.
But I don't think I want to put up with a warning coming out of core MM all
the time so let's go with the following silliness which adds no additional
runtime cost.
---
a/mm/memory.c~add-apply_to_page_range-which-applies-a-function-to-a-pte-range-fix
+++ a/mm/memory.c
@@ -1455,7 +1455,7 @@ static int apply_to_pte_range(struct mm_
pte_t *pte;
int err;
struct page *pmd_page;
- spinlock_t *ptl;
+ spinlock_t *ptl = ptl; /* Suppress gcc warning */
pte = (mm == &init_mm) ?
pte_alloc_kernel(pmd, addr) :
_
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
