net/ipv4/route.c:1283:9: warning: unused variable 'saddr'
Subsystems (4)
PATCH 90/102 net/ipv4/route.c:1283:9: warning: unused variable 'saddr'
Hi David,
There are new compile warnings show up in
tree: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git master head: 3ec5a261aef55a32664bffd335e5c32aeadf3215 commit: e47a185b31dd2acd424fac7dc0efb96fc5b31a33 [90/102] ipv4: Generalize ip_do_redirect() and hook into new dst_ops->redirect.
All warnings:
net/ipv4/route.c: In function 'ip_do_redirect':net/ipv4/route.c:1283:9: warning: unused variable 'saddr' [-Wunused-variable] net/ipv4/route.c:1282:9: warning: unused variable 'daddr' [-Wunused-variable]
vim +1283 net/ipv4/route.c
1280 __be32 old_gw = ip_hdr(skb)->saddr;
1281 struct net_device *dev = skb->dev;
1282 __be32 daddr = iph->daddr;
Quoted 1 line
1283
__be32saddr =iph->saddr;
1284 struct in_device *in_dev;
1285 struct neighbour *n;
1286 struct rtable *rt;
..because the saddr/daddr variables are used inside
#ifdef CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_VERBOSE
if (IN_DEV_LOG_MARTIANS(in_dev))
net_info_ratelimited("Redirect from %pI4 on %s about %pI4 ignored\n"
" Advised path = %pI4 -> %pI4\n",
&old_gw, dev->name, &new_gw,
&saddr, &daddr);#endif
---
0-DAY kernel build testing backend Open Source Technology Centre
Fengguang Wu <[email protected]> Intel Corporation
David Miller
maintainerThere's not need to report these to kernel-janitors if it's a net-next specific issue and I'm going to fix it up 5 minutes after you report it.
==========
[PATCH] ipv4: Fix warnings in ip_do_redirect() for some configurations.
--- net/ipv4/route.c | 10 ++++++---- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
net/ipv4/route.c +6 -4
@@ -1275,12 +1275,9 @@ static void rt_del(unsigned int hash, struct rtable *rt)static void ip_do_redirect (struct dst_entry *dst,struct sk_buff *skb) { -const struct iphdr *iph = (const struct iphdr *) skb->data;__be32 new_gw =icmp_hdr (skb)->un.gateway;__be32 old_gw =ip_hdr (skb)->saddr;struct net_device *dev = skb->dev; -__be32 daddr = iph->daddr; -__be32 saddr = iph->saddr;struct in_device *in_dev;struct neighbour *n;struct rtable *rt;
@@ -1336,11 +1333,16 @@ static void ip_do_redirect(struct dst_entry *dst, struct sk_buff *skb) reject_redirect:#ifdef CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_VERBOSE -if (IN_DEV_LOG_MARTIANS (in_dev)) +if (IN_DEV_LOG_MARTIANS (in_dev)) { +const struct iphdr *iph = (const struct iphdr *) skb->data; +__be32 daddr = iph->daddr; +__be32 saddr = iph->saddr; +net_info_ratelimited ("Redirect from %pI4 on %s about %pI4 ignored\n" " Advised path = %pI4 -> %pI4\n" , &old_gw, dev->name, &new_gw, &saddr, &daddr); + }#endif ; }
Signature · 1 line
1.7.10.4
OK!
Quoted 51 lines · David Miller
There's not need to report these to kernel-janitors if it's a net-next specific issue and I'm going to fix it up 5 minutes after you report it.
==========
[PATCH] ipv4: Fix warnings inip_do_redirect()for some configurations.Reported-by Fengguang Wu <[email protected]>Signed-off-by David S. Miller <[email protected]>--- net/ipv4/route.c | 10 ++++++---- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)net/ipv4/route.c +6
-4@@ -1275,12 +1275,9 @@ static void rt_del(unsigned int hash, struct rtable *rt)static void ip_do_redirect (struct dst_entry *dst,struct sk_buff *skb) { -const struct iphdr *iph = (const struct iphdr *) skb->data;__be32 new_gw =icmp_hdr (skb)->un.gateway;__be32 old_gw =ip_hdr (skb)->saddr;struct net_device *dev = skb->dev; -__be32 daddr = iph->daddr; -__be32 saddr = iph->saddr;struct in_device *in_dev;struct neighbour *n;struct rtable *rt;@@ -1336,11 +1333,16 @@ static void ip_do_redirect(struct dst_entry *dst, struct sk_buff *skb) reject_redirect:#ifdef CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_VERBOSE -if (IN_DEV_LOG_MARTIANS (in_dev)) +if (IN_DEV_LOG_MARTIANS (in_dev)) { +const struct iphdr *iph = (const struct iphdr *) skb->data; +__be32 daddr = iph->daddr; +__be32 saddr = iph->saddr; +net_info_ratelimited ("Redirect from %pI4 on %s about %pI4 ignored\n" " Advised path = %pI4 -> %pI4\n" , &old_gw, dev->name, &new_gw, &saddr, &daddr); + }#endif ; }Signature · 1 line
1.7.10.4
Quoted 4 lines · David Miller
There's not need to report these to kernel-janitors if it's a net-next specific issue and I'm going to fix it up 5 minutes after you report it.
The kernel-janitors list is CC'd to prevent people from sending duplicate messages. This has happened in the past and it's annoying for everyone.
regards,
dan carpenter