On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 06:44:24PM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
> From: shengjiu wang <[email protected]>
>
> When condition ((hdmi_out && hdmi_in) || (!hdmi_out && !hdmi_in))
> is true, then goto fail, the uninitialized variable ret will be
> returned.
>
> Signed-off-by: shengjiu wang <[email protected]>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <[email protected]>
> ---
> sound/soc/fsl/imx-hdmi.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/sound/soc/fsl/imx-hdmi.c b/sound/soc/fsl/imx-hdmi.c
> index 2c2a76a71940..ede4a9ad1054 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/fsl/imx-hdmi.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/fsl/imx-hdmi.c
> @@ -164,6 +164,7 @@ static int imx_hdmi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> if ((hdmi_out && hdmi_in) || (!hdmi_out && !hdmi_in)) {
> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Invalid HDMI DAI link\n");
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> goto fail;
> }
>
> --
> 2.17.1
>
I still see a warning in v5.11-rc3 that is fixed by this patch, is it
not going in this release cycle? It is a regression fix, seems like it
should.
Cheers,
Nathan
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:19:49AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
Please delete unneeded context from mails when replying. Doing this
makes it much easier to find your reply in the message, helping ensure
it won't be missed by people scrolling through the irrelevant quoted
material.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: shengjiu wang <[email protected]>
> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <[email protected]>
> > ---
> I still see a warning in v5.11-rc3 that is fixed by this patch, is it
> not going in this release cycle? It is a regression fix, seems like it
> should.
This is a random warning fix, why would you expect it to be sent as a
bug fix? This is the first indication I've seen that anyone is seeing
it in mainline, in general the people who report and fix warnings are
doing so based on -next and the patch seems to be from a month ago. I
don't have this in my inbox so I assume it's applied already or needs to
be resubmitted anyway.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 06:48:48PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> This is a random warning fix, why would you expect it to be sent as a
> bug fix? This is the first indication I've seen that anyone is seeing
> it in mainline, in general the people who report and fix warnings are
> doing so based on -next and the patch seems to be from a month ago. I
> don't have this in my inbox so I assume it's applied already or needs to
> be resubmitted anyway.
Well, I consider compiler warnings bugs. I have had plenty of my
compiler warning patches sent as bug fixes for an -rc. Furthermore, this
patch was sent three times by different people, that should give you some
indication that people are tripping over it.
https://lore.kernel.org/alsa-devel/X9NGQaF4pmK8oUAF@mwanda/
https://lore.kernel.org/alsa-devel/[email protected]/
https://lore.kernel.org/alsa-devel/[email protected]/
The first version was sent on December 11th, it looks like your pull for
5.11 went on the December 14th, then the second version was applied on
December 16th so I figured it might be destined for 5.11 but I could not
tell (your for-next branch is a merge of your for-5.11 and for-5.12):
https://lore.kernel.org/alsa-devel/[email protected]/
Cheers,
Nathan
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 12:09:21PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 06:48:48PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > This is a random warning fix, why would you expect it to be sent as a
> > bug fix? This is the first indication I've seen that anyone is seeing
> > it in mainline, in general the people who report and fix warnings are
> > doing so based on -next and the patch seems to be from a month ago. I
> > don't have this in my inbox so I assume it's applied already or needs to
> > be resubmitted anyway.
> Well, I consider compiler warnings bugs. I have had plenty of my
> compiler warning patches sent as bug fixes for an -rc. Furthermore, this
> patch was sent three times by different people, that should give you some
> indication that people are tripping over it.
I really don't have that good a recall of what warning fixes people are
sending, I might notice if I get two versions of the same thing that I
look at at roughly the same time but even with a few hours between it's
most likely that I'll have completely forgotten. Warning fixes are in
general not memorable, it's not a good sign if they are. The default
assumption for any warning fix that doesn't say anything else is going
to be that either the issue or the toolchain is very new.
For any kind of fix if you think that things are in some way urgent you
should say something promptly (or provide some indication of this in the
submission if you're sending the fix yourself, such as with a fixes
tag). If nobody says anything then you should assume that nobody else
is going to be aware of any urgency and that this will affect handling.
Should it happen that things aren't flagged up then of course do so but
consider that this may well be the first time people will be aware
there's any urgency, don't assume that people will have been operating
with information they didn't have.
> The first version was sent on December 11th, it looks like your pull for
> 5.11 went on the December 14th, then the second version was applied on
> December 16th so I figured it might be destined for 5.11 but I could not
> tell (your for-next branch is a merge of your for-5.11 and for-5.12):
If it's on the for-5.11 branch then it will be for 5.11, which it must
be if it was applied then. If it was and it was applied that long ago
it'll already be queued in Takashi's tree and I guess he didn't send it
on yet.