Re: [PATCH 4/5]pci:setup_bus.c Fix warning: variable 'retval' setbut not used

[Jesse Barnes]

On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:26:32 -0700
"Justin P. Mattock" <justinmattock@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 06/18/2010 01:05 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 12:59:32 -0700
> > "Justin P. Mattock"<justinmattock@xxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> >> just added this in(as a test), and the retval warning still shows up.
> >> with the last post I just added a printk was that legit, and if so what
> >> else might be added to it to make it complete and proper?
> >
> > What's the full warning?  Seems like printing the value should have
> > been enough to shut up gcc...
> >
> 
> this is the warning messg after applying yinghai's patch:
> 
>    CC      drivers/pci/setup-bus.o
> drivers/pci/setup-bus.c: In function 
> 'pci_assign_unassigned_bridge_resources':
> drivers/pci/setup-bus.c:868:6: warning: variable 'retval' set but not used

Right because Yinghai's patch just sets retval but doesn't actually use
it anywhere.

> if I add a printk then gcc is content.. patch below, but not the best at 
> creating printk's(the whole % thing messes me up) but here goes:
> 
>  From 48e15b87072c6b4286d943c55bfe2ae26d358795 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Justin P. Mattock <justinmattock@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:23:27 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH 4/4] bus.c_add_print
>   Signed-off-by: Justin P. Mattock <justinmattock@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> ---
>   drivers/pci/setup-bus.c |    1 +
>   1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
> index 66cb8f4..806b766 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
> @@ -919,6 +919,7 @@ again:
> 
>   enable_all:
>   	retval = pci_reenable_device(bridge);
> +	printk(KERN_DEBUG "PCI%d: re-enabling device\n", retval);
>   	pci_set_master(bridge);
>   	pci_enable_bridges(parent);
>   }

Again, this doesn't have the if (retval) condition around the printk; I
don't want to see this message everytime regardless.  Also the message
is misleading, it should be something like:
  dev_err(&bridge->dev, "failed to re-enable device: %d\n", retval)
instead.  PCI%d makes it look like we're talking about a specific bus
or something and not an error code.

-- 
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/