From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C59DBC433E0 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 08:45:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E4062067B for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 08:45:55 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7E4062067B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-erofs-bounces+linux-erofs=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49llKX6f6jzDqYX for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 18:45:52 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com (client-ip=45.249.212.190; helo=huawei.com; envelope-from=yuchao0@huawei.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com X-Greylist: delayed 959 seconds by postgrey-1.36 at bilbo; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 18:45:44 AEST Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.190]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49llKN3PYNzDqXJ for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 18:45:40 +1000 (AEST) Received: from DGGEMS401-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.59]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 22705C249E38EBCC0C97; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 16:29:08 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.134.22.195] (10.134.22.195) by smtp.huawei.com (10.3.19.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.487.0; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 16:29:00 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH] erofs: Eliminate usage of uninitialized_var() macro To: Gao Xiang , Jason Yan References: <20200615040141.3627746-1-yanaijie@huawei.com> <20200615072521.GA25317@xiangao.remote.csb> <783fe4f9-fb1f-7f5e-c900-7e30d5c85222@huawei.com> <20200615080714.GB25317@xiangao.remote.csb> From: Chao Yu Message-ID: <4319ff76-c61f-e266-354f-83526207c767@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 16:29:00 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200615080714.GB25317@xiangao.remote.csb> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gbk" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.134.22.195] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-BeenThere: linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Development of Linux EROFS file system List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Kees Cook , kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xiang@kernel.org, linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linux-erofs-bounces+linux-erofs=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linux-erofs" On 2020/6/15 16:07, Gao Xiang wrote: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 03:43:09PM +0800, Jason Yan wrote: >> >> >> 蝨?2020/6/15 15:25, Gao Xiang 蜀咎％: >>> Hi Jason, >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 12:01:41PM +0800, Jason Yan wrote: >>>> This is an effort to eliminate the uninitialized_var() macro[1]. >>>> >>>> The use of this macro is the wrong solution because it forces off ANY >>>> analysis by the compiler for a given variable. It even masks "unused >>>> variable" warnings. >>>> >>>> Quoted from Linus[2]: >>>> >>>> "It's a horrible thing to use, in that it adds extra cruft to the >>>> source code, and then shuts up a compiler warning (even the _reliable_ >>>> warnings from gcc)." >>>> >>>> The gcc option "-Wmaybe-uninitialized" has been disabled and this change >>>> will not produce any warnnings even with "make W=1". >>>> >>>> [1] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/81 >>>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFz2500WfbKXAx8s67wrm9=yVJu65TpLgN_ybYNv0VEOKA@mail.gmail.com/ >>>> >>>> Cc: Kees Cook >>>> Cc: Chao Yu >>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Yan >>>> --- >>> >>> I'm fine with the patch since "-Wmaybe-uninitialized" has been disabled and >>> I've also asked Kees for it in private previously. >>> >>> I still remembered that Kees sent out a treewide patch. Sorry about that >>> I don't catch up it... But what is wrong with the original patchset? >>> >> >> Yes, Kees has remind me of that and I will let him handle it. So you can >> ignore this patch. > > Okay, I was just wondering if this part should be send out via EROFS tree > for this cycle. However if there was an automatic generated patch by Kees, > I think perhaps Linus could pick them out directly. But anyway, both ways > are fine with me. ;) Ping me when needed. Either way is okay to me. Reviewed-by: Chao Yu Thanks, > > Thanks, > Gao Xiang > >> >> Thanks, >> Jason >> >>> Thanks, >>> Gao Xiang >>> >>> >>> . >>> >> > > . >