Re: [PULL 05/17] hw/i386/acpi-build: Fix maybe-uninitialized error when ACPI hotplug off

[Ani Sinha]

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 23:32 Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> wrote:

On 11/16/20 6:44 PM, Ani Sinha wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 03:57 Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com
> <mailto:mst@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>     From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com
>     <mailto:philmd@redhat.com>>
>
>     GCC 9.3.0 thinks that 'method' can be left uninitialized. This code
>     is already in the "if (bsel || pcihp_bridge_en)" block statement,
>     but it isn't smart enough to figure it out.
>
>     Restrict the code to be used only in the "if (bsel || pcihp_bridge_en)"
>     block statement to fix (on Ubuntu):
>
>       ../hw/i386/acpi-build.c: In function 'build_append_pci_bus_devices':
>       ../hw/i386/acpi-build.c:496:9: error: 'method' may be used
>     uninitialized
>       in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
>         496 |         aml_append(parent_scope, method);
>             |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>       cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
>
>     Fixes: df4008c9c59 ("piix4: don't reserve hw resources when hotplug
>     is off globally")
>     Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com
>     <mailto:philmd@redhat.com>>
>     Message-Id: <20201107194045.438027-1-philmd@redhat.com" target="_blank">20201107194045.438027-1-philmd@redhat.com
>     <mailto:20201107194045.438027-1-philmd@redhat.com" target="_blank">20201107194045.438027-1-philmd@redhat.com>>
>     Acked-by: Ani Sinha <ani@anisinha.ca <mailto:ani@anisinha.ca>>
>     Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com <mailto:mst@redhat.com>>
>     Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com
>     <mailto:mst@redhat.com>>
>
>
> Is there any reason why my ack was removed from the patch that was
> ultimately merged?

The patch merged is not the patch Michael queued. So your Ack has not
been removed, simply Alex queued an older version previous to your Ack.
https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg760119.htm

Ugh! So is there any material difference between those two patches? I took a quick look and it seemed the same patch.

>
> https://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commit;h=811c74fb657db0559274a710e50ef0096a1915a3
> <https://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commit;h=811c74fb657db0559274a710e50ef0096a1915a3>