[PATCH] erofs: Eliminate usage of uninitialized_var() macro

[Gao Xiang]

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 03:43:09PM +0800, Jason Yan wrote:
> 
> 
> 在 2020/6/15 15:25, Gao Xiang 写道:
> > 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 <keescook at chromium.org>
> > > Cc: Chao Yu <yuchao0 at huawei.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jason Yan <yanaijie at huawei.com>
> > > ---
> > 
> > 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.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

> 
> Thanks,
> Jason
> 
> > Thanks,
> > Gao Xiang
> > 
> > 
> > .
> > 
>