Re: [PATCH mdadm] raid6check.c: fix "misleading-indentation" error

[NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2517 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 25 2016, Jes Sorensen wrote:

> renyl <yilongx.ren@intel.com> writes:
>> From: Yilong Ren <yilongx.ren@intel.com>
>>
>> To fix the following error info:
>>
>> root@vm-lkp-nex04-8G-7 /tmp/mdadm# make test
>> cc -Wall -Werror -Wstrict-prototypes -Wextra -Wno-unused-parameter -ggdb -DSendmail=\""/usr/sbin/sendmail -t"\" -DCONFFILE=\"/etc/mdadm.conf\" -DCONFFILE2=\"/etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf\" -DMAP_DIR=\"/run/mdadm\" -DMAP_FILE=\"map\" -DMDMON_DIR=\"/run/mdadm\" -DFAILED_SLOTS_DIR=\"/run/mdadm/failed-slots\" -DNO_COROSYNC -DNO_DLM -DVERSION=\"3.4-43-g1dcee1c\" -DVERS_DATE="\"06th April 2016\"" -DUSE_PTHREADS -DBINDIR=\"/sbin\"  -c -o raid6check.o raid6check.c
>> raid6check.c: In function 'manual_repair':
>> raid6check.c:267:4: error: this 'else' clause does not guard... [-Werror=misleading-indentation]
>>     else
>>     ^~~~
>> raid6check.c:269:5: note: ...this statement, but the latter is misleadingly indented as if it is guarded by the 'else'
>>      printf("Repairing D(%d) and P\n", failed_data);
>>      ^~~~~~
>> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
>> <builtin>: recipe for target 'raid6check.o' failed
>> make: *** [raid6check.o] Error 1
>> root@vm-lkp-nex04-8G-7 /tmp/mdadm# 
>>
>>
>> Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
>> Cc: linux-raid <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>
>> Cc: LKP <lkp@eclists.intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Yilong Ren <yilongx.ren@intel.com>
>> ---
>>  raid6check.c | 3 ++-
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/raid6check.c b/raid6check.c
>> index ad7ffe7..acfc9a3 100644
>> --- a/raid6check.c
>> +++ b/raid6check.c
>> @@ -264,9 +264,10 @@ int manual_repair(int chunk_size, int syndrome_disks,
>>  			int failed_data;
>>  			if (failed_slot1 == -1)
>>  				failed_data = failed_slot2;
>> -			else
>> +			else {
>>  				failed_data = failed_slot1;
>>  				printf("Repairing D(%d) and P\n", failed_data);
>> +			}
>>  			raid6_datap_recov(syndrome_disks+2, chunk_size,
>>  					  failed_data, (uint8_t**)blocks, 1);
>>  		} else {
>
> Hi,
>
> I suspect this patch is wrong and the code is meant to print in either
> case.
>
> Neil?

Looking at the whole 

	if (failed_slot1 == -2 || failed_slot2 == -2) {

statement it looks like every path through should print a message, and
this section would be more similar to the previous section if, as you
say, the code prints in either case.

So I agree: original code is correct, indentation is wrong.

NeilBrown

>
> Cheers,
> Jes

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 800 bytes --]