From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C30F1B39B for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2018 16:11:40 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Oct 2018 07:11:40 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,336,1534834800"; d="scan'208";a="78381048" Received: from fyigit-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.221.49]) ([10.237.221.49]) by orsmga008.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Oct 2018 07:11:37 -0700 To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Rahul Lakkireddy , Wenzhuo Lu , Qi Zhang , Xiao Wang , Konstantin Ananyev , Rasesh Mody , Harish Patil , Shahed Shaikh , Yong Wang , dev@dpdk.org References: <20180920001853.23454-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <1920676.XclAJlGjTg@xps> <840d806c-d75c-f990-5883-1315ea37f95b@intel.com> <2353010.843Iz9OGFG@xps> From: Ferruh Yigit Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Message-ID: <1d72af01-ec77-0d5f-12a7-9a612f06982a@intel.com> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 15:11:36 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2353010.843Iz9OGFG@xps> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] drivers/net: do not redefine bool X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 14:11:41 -0000 On 9/25/2018 10:04 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 25/09/2018 10:03, Ferruh Yigit: >> On 9/24/2018 5:59 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c >>>>> @@ -2025,7 +2025,7 @@ ixgbe_recv_pkts_lro(void *rx_queue, struct rte_mbuf **rx_pkts, uint16_t nb_pkts, >>>>> struct ixgbe_rx_entry *next_rxe = NULL; >>>>> struct rte_mbuf *first_seg; >>>>> struct rte_mbuf *rxm; >>>>> - struct rte_mbuf *nmb; >>>>> + struct rte_mbuf *nmb = NULL; >>>> >>>> This change is unrelated. Can we separate this one? >>> >>> Yes it looks unrelated but it becomes necessary when including stdbool.h. >>> I don't know the root cause, but yes, it may deserve a separate commit. >>> Maybe an ixgbe maintainer can take care of it? >> >> Why becomes necessary? Does it give a build warning etc? >> My concern is this is in data path, one extra assignment, it would be better to >> confirm it is really needed. > > Yes I had a compilation error. > If you cannot reproduce it, I will try to re-run my compilation tests. I got the error with gcc [1] but it seems false positive and only generated when included in ixgbe_rxtx.c, so this is an odd one, I am not able to find root cause. But since it is false positive, what do you think adding compiler option to disable this warning for this file? [1] .../drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c:2139:14: error: ‘nmb’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized] rxe->mbuf = nmb; ~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~ $ gcc --version gcc (GCC) 8.1.1 20180712 (Red Hat 8.1.1-5)