Hi Mauro, On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 2:24 AM Mauro Carvalho Chehab <[email protected]> wrote: > > Em Sun, 1 Jun 2025 12:01:22 +0200 > Ricardo Ribalda <[email protected]> escreveu: > > > Hi Mauro > > > > On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 at 11:34, Mauro Carvalho Chehab > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Em Wed, 28 May 2025 18:23:02 +0200 > > > Ricardo Ribalda <[email protected]> escreveu: > > > > > > > > +static int scatterlist_builder_add_userptr(struct > > > > > scatterlist_builder *builder, > > > > > + unsigned long userptr, > > > > > + unsigned long length) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + int ret; > > > > > + int nents; > > > > Could you initialize nents and sg_list? > > > > old versions of gcc are a bit picky > > > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/linux-media/users/ribalda/-/jobs/77042562#L4381 > > > > > > Please don't. In this specific case, ret is always initialized: > > > > > > > + struct virtio_media_sg_entry *sg_list; > > > > + > > > > + ret = __scatterlist_builder_add_userptr(builder, userptr, > > > > length, > > > > + &sg_list, &nents); > > > > > > nents and sg_list may or may not be initialized at the function, > > > but initializing it is wrong, as, when they are not initialized, the > > > ret code shall catch it (and if not, we *do* want gcc to warn). > > > > > > So, if our CI is warning about that due to an old version, please upgrade > > > the version at the CI runner. > > > > The main version of gcc works fine. It is the minimal version (8.1) > > required by > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/next/process/changes.html > > that complains. > > Ricardo, > > gcc 8.1 was released in May 2, 2018. I don't think it makes sense to > address bogus warnings with that old gcc versions. I would just disable > WERROR for such versions on our CI tests. > > --- > > Alexandre/Michael, > > I need a couple of full days to properly review virtio-media. > I was planning to do it during this Kernel cycle, but I ended > allocating too much time just to be able to create a crossvm > that would allow testing it. Afterwards, I got sidetracked with other > issues. I won't be able to review it in time for this merge window. > > I'm planning to do it at the beginning of the next merge cycle.
Not a worry at all and I appreciate the time you are putting aside to review this properly! Thanks, Alex.
