From: John Donnelly <[email protected]>
The assignment statement of a local variable "struct tp_nvram_state s[2] = {0};
is not valid for all versions of compilers.
Fixes: 515ded02bc4b ("platform/x86: thinkpad_acpi: initialize tp_nvram_state variable")
Signed-off-by: John Donnelly <[email protected]>
---
drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
index ffaaccded34e..c41ac0385304 100644
--- a/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
+++ b/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
@@ -2477,7 +2477,7 @@ static void hotkey_compare_and_issue_event(struct tp_nvram_state *oldn,
*/
static int hotkey_kthread(void *data)
{
- struct tp_nvram_state s[2] = { 0 };
+ struct tp_nvram_state s[2];
u32 poll_mask, event_mask;
unsigned int si, so;
unsigned long t;
@@ -2488,6 +2488,8 @@ static int hotkey_kthread(void *data)
if (tpacpi_lifecycle == TPACPI_LIFE_EXITING)
goto exit;
+ memset(&s, 0, sizeof(s));
+
set_freezable();
so = 0;
--
2.27.0
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 08:55:01AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> From: John Donnelly <[email protected]>
>
> The assignment statement of a local variable "struct tp_nvram_state s[2] = {0};
> is not valid for all versions of compilers.
I don't get the subject. IS it backport of existing change to v4.14, or you are
trying to fix v4.14? If the latter is the case, it's not correct order. Try
latest vanilla first (v5.10-rc1 as of today) and if there is still an issue,
submit a patch.
> Fixes: 515ded02bc4b ("platform/x86: thinkpad_acpi: initialize tp_nvram_state variable")
>
> Signed-off-by: John Donnelly <[email protected]>
Should not be blank line in between.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
> On Oct 30, 2020, at 11:52 AM, Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 08:55:01AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>> From: John Donnelly <[email protected]>
>>
>> The assignment statement of a local variable "struct tp_nvram_state s[2] = {0};
>> is not valid for all versions of compilers.
>
> I don't get the subject. IS it backport of existing change to v4.14, or you are
> trying to fix v4.14? If the latter is the case, it's not correct order. Try
> latest vanilla first (v5.10-rc1 as of today) and if there is still an issue,
> submit a patch.
Hi,
It is only intended for 4.14. Why would you back port a commit to a stable tree that emits warnings ?
>
>> Fixes: 515ded02bc4b ("platform/x86: thinkpad_acpi: initialize tp_nvram_state variable")
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Donnelly <[email protected]>
>
> Should not be blank line in between.
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 12:18:44PM -0500, John Donnelly wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 2020, at 11:52 AM, Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 08:55:01AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >> From: John Donnelly <[email protected]>
> >>
> >> The assignment statement of a local variable "struct tp_nvram_state s[2] = {0};
> >> is not valid for all versions of compilers.
> >
> > I don't get the subject. IS it backport of existing change to v4.14, or you are
> > trying to fix v4.14? If the latter is the case, it's not correct order. Try
> > latest vanilla first (v5.10-rc1 as of today) and if there is still an issue,
> > submit a patch.
>
> Hi,
>
> It is only intended for 4.14. Why would you back port a commit to a stable tree that emits warnings ?
So, if this is for stable, what is the current commit in the kernel of this?
> >> Fixes: 515ded02bc4b ("platform/x86: thinkpad_acpi: initialize tp_nvram_state variable")
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: John Donnelly <[email protected]>
> >
> > Should not be blank line in between.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko