Re: [PATCH] silence spinlock/rwlock uninitialized break_lock member warnings

[Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk>]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:

> Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk> wrote:
> >
> > Any chance this patch could be added to -mm (and possibly mainline)?
> 
> Spose I can stick it in -mm.
> 
> > It removes a bunch of warnings when building with gcc -W, like these:
> > include/linux/wait.h:82: warning: missing initializer
> > include/linux/wait.h:82: warning: (near initialization for `(anonymous).break_lock')
> > include/asm/rwsem.h:88: warning: missing initializer
> > include/asm/rwsem.h:88: warning: (near initialization for `(anonymous).break_lock')
> > so there's less to sift through when looking for real problems with this 
> > patch applied. 
> > I've been using it for a while with no ill effects.
> 
> But I'd rather not add a bunch of even-more-ifdefs to support a compiler
> flag which we're not going to use.  It's easy enough for the `gcc -W' user
> to add the patch himself.
> 
True, it's trivial to just add the patch when needed (aka building with 
-W), but the number of such patches add up and having them in the tree by 
default is less pain (for the -W user).  I'm not on a quest to make the 
tree -W clean, but I find -W useful to find the odd actual problem and a 
number of the warnings that -W spits out can be silenced without harm, 
those are the ones I aim to fix. But I see the point of not adding patches 
to make -W happy if it adds clutter for the non-W case, so I'll see if I 
can come up with a cleaner way to fix this case that will be more 
generally acceptable (perhaps Zwane's suggestion about using named 
initializers could result in something cleaner - I'll look at that)...


-- 
Jesper