From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C282A2E1B for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 15:25:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA0881EF87; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 15:25:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-qt1-f193.google.com (mail-qt1-f193.google.com [209.85.160.193]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3C411EF7C for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 15:25:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-qt1-f193.google.com with SMTP id u40so2717967qth.11 for ; Thu, 05 Sep 2019 06:25:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hL/MAoJLkfSXYQt3ptbrH4HJ1/m/Ng5ub1Xhd51eNyI=; b=SwHhkpSJuPTOBrmr4ga0hKZAbqSEjwl9SF1U9w9hOAOAqtBPESM/PE8dNNw5FYnF09 JnUOCIbA1pZ85/WxIwVuCD7kfRIEwddkmXdfqoMPAecij5bunG1DcJX8DN2g91h/fvRw M/VTUFhqPwbQXHr/veE2cX1lHm1FEeo3CD89V6W1NyBKxa/JymeSwzNngOSsElQyJC/r aCObJQJUdz4vpgcn6S3SWdjfjTqhS0wJmB9uKSfUavADilK/KJnUyyjAiR5TzDp8+Vuu v8OMwPyJI0JG4PbBDpesz8bYJGuTivXWhjuaOCOd6KULx0dn1ojsoP42PdX30MJjtyZH Gipw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=hL/MAoJLkfSXYQt3ptbrH4HJ1/m/Ng5ub1Xhd51eNyI=; b=S4NPPxa9X3DU+3kgla951ZN+ICLLIki1BMHp41U57L/0MA3iwRYQoDXSdgGhIvka/T kj+JxZlPOalT34L3Zaqg+I6H59GDXupe1RniuL9phKKW/zUyb1Br05Ma79k77HbtOXSg S+gP6g/mhnfWf867QPOYyuHkbDT/fPzmNq+yhj+rN4jm32GTIOQeY+DbjO447KOAdB00 hNdJILBjvVbJUSIj0XuD+oTyCEm9ff/7XraV1ubx9lEIBu9ACWVT6r7kpF20Rm58bvSd jhqlzS+UdjtTFdgzcLx/HTrTuuWdmGLYktltOB7viEpmIIec+l1z68GVOT2Hx/EbECjQ r29A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWWw3UvBplptSgAJtVquMrplQn8OUYy3yLmLRvdl8j4zsc91dw3 +P5RAhmxdAUBVia3CUYayWo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzT8nLCVwWEmsaQPzhhxBAiG7TPjjFfIBInIJDmkMSUB5dSdhP0zdudPq1Mdos2E3X/VPmxAQ== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:2914:: with SMTP id y20mr3573456qty.150.1567689950192; Thu, 05 Sep 2019 06:25:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.10] (pool-96-255-60-31.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [96.255.60.31]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h68sm1119341qkd.35.2019.09.05.06.25.49 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Sep 2019 06:25:49 -0700 (PDT) To: Andrzej Ostruszka , dev@dpdk.org Cc: Andrzej Ostruszka References: <20190905093239.27187-1-amo@semihalf.com> <20190905093239.27187-6-amo@semihalf.com> From: Chas Williams <3chas3@gmail.com> Message-ID: <85b8287e-4396-6cdd-bd24-79ebfd408e3c@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 09:25:48 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190905093239.27187-6-amo@semihalf.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 05/10] app/test: fix maybe-uninitialized warnings for LTO build 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 9/5/19 5:32 AM, Andrzej Ostruszka wrote: > During LTO build compiler reports some 'false positive' warnings about > variables being possibly used uninitialized. This patch silences these > warnings. > > Signed-off-by: Andrzej Ostruszka > --- > app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c | 2 +- > app/test/test_link_bonding_mode4.c | 6 ++++-- > app/test/test_memzone.c | 3 ++- > 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c b/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c > index 4376b099b..615767fb6 100644 > --- a/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c > +++ b/app/test/test_hash_readwrite.c > @@ -298,7 +298,7 @@ test_rw_reader(void *arg) > > begin = rte_rdtsc_precise(); > for (i = 0; i < read_cnt; i++) { > - void *data; > + void *data = arg; > rte_hash_lookup_data(tbl_rw_test_param.h, > tbl_rw_test_param.keys + i, > &data); > diff --git a/app/test/test_link_bonding_mode4.c b/app/test/test_link_bonding_mode4.c > index bbb4e9cce..8ca376dda 100644 > --- a/app/test/test_link_bonding_mode4.c > +++ b/app/test/test_link_bonding_mode4.c > @@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ configure_ethdev(uint16_t port_id, uint8_t start) > static int > add_slave(struct slave_conf *slave, uint8_t start) > { > - struct rte_ether_addr addr, addr_check; > + struct rte_ether_addr addr, addr_check = { { 0 } }; > > /* Some sanity check */ > RTE_VERIFY(test_params.slave_ports <= slave && > @@ -578,7 +578,9 @@ bond_get_update_timeout_ms(void) > { > struct rte_eth_bond_8023ad_conf conf; > > - rte_eth_bond_8023ad_conf_get(test_params.bonded_port_id, &conf); > + if (rte_eth_bond_8023ad_conf_get(test_params.bonded_port_id, &conf) < 0) > + return 0; > + This would return a delay of 0ms, which doesn't feel like it captures the intent of conf_get failing. Perhaps a TEST_ASSERT_FAILURE() instead? > return conf.update_timeout_ms; > } > > diff --git a/app/test/test_memzone.c b/app/test/test_memzone.c > index 7501b63c5..c284dcb44 100644 > --- a/app/test/test_memzone.c > +++ b/app/test/test_memzone.c > @@ -476,7 +476,8 @@ find_max_block_free_size(unsigned int align, unsigned int socket_id) > struct rte_malloc_socket_stats stats; > size_t len, overhead; > > - rte_malloc_get_socket_stats(socket_id, &stats); > + if (rte_malloc_get_socket_stats(socket_id, &stats) < 0) > + return 0; > > len = stats.greatest_free_size; > overhead = MALLOC_ELEM_OVERHEAD; >