Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Aug 2021 23:05:57 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [tip:x86/urgent] BUILD SUCCESS WITH WARNING 064855a69003c24bd6b473b367d364e418c57625 |
| |
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 01:39:46PM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: > I can confirm that the removed comment explains why m would be initialized > when used in the code that follows. > > How would you prefer to address this? We could add just the comment back in > support of future reports or perhaps by adding the default case back with > the same error that would be returned earlier when there is an invalid > EVENT_ID. Something like: > > ---8<--- > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c > b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c > index 57e4bb695ff9..05b99e4d621c 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c > @@ -304,6 +304,12 @@ static u64 __mon_event_count(u32 rmid, struct rmid_read > *rr) > case QOS_L3_MBM_LOCAL_EVENT_ID: > m = &rr->d->mbm_local[rmid]; > break; > + default: > + /* > + * Code would never reach here because > + * an invalid event id would fail the __rmid_read. > + */ > + return RMID_VAL_ERROR; > } > > if (rr->first) {
Right, I would normally not take a patch just to fix a tool because it cannot see it correctly.
But Babu has another use case which breaks the build so I guess that's serious enough to make an exception.
Babu, can you please explain?
Thx.
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
| |