chas williams - CONTRACTOR wrote:
> still generates a warning from gcc though.
The warning is bogus in this case, though -- the only way for "*pcr" to
be unset is when alloc_shaper() returns non-zero
> + *pcr = 0;
You're right, 0 is better than ATM_MAX_PCR here.
-Mitch
-
To unsubscr
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,Mitchell Blank Jr writes:
>The fix is for alloc_shaper() should really do "*pcr = ATM_MAX_PCR" in
>the "if (ubr)" stanza. Chas, want to submit that in the next batch
>of patches?
i dont think you can do that. pcr gets assigned to .min_pcr and .min_pcr
= ATM_MAX_PCR
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,Jeff Garzik writes:
>If alloc_shaper() argument 'unlimited' is true, then pcr is never
>assigned a value. However, the caller of alloc_shaper() always tests
>the pcr value, regardless of whether or not 'unlimited' is true.
when unlimited is true, this means ubr.
(trimmed cc:'s since, IMO, isn't really all that general interest)
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> drivers/atm/zatm.c: In function ?zatm_open?:
> drivers/atm/zatm.c:919: warning: ?pcr? may be used uninitialized in this
> function
Yeah, looks like a bug. Not very high-impact because:
1. it only results i
Unlike 98% of the warnings of this type, this gcc warning does indeed
seem to indicate a bug:
drivers/atm/zatm.c: In function ‘zatm_open’:
drivers/atm/zatm.c:919: warning: ‘pcr’ may be used uninitialized in this
function
If alloc_shaper() argument 'unlimited' is true, then pcr is never
assig
