Smatch complains that "ret" might be uninitialized. I can see why it
generates the warning, but I don't know if it's actually possible.
Anyway initializing "ret" here is harmless.
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
---
drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c
index 1c488024c698..fc58d660692f 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c
+++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c
@@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ static int __qcom_mdt_load(struct device *dev, const struct firmware *fw,
if (reloc_base)
*reloc_base = mem_reloc;
-
+ ret = 0;
out:
kfree(fw_name);
--
2.17.1
On 4/4/2019 2:12 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Smatch complains that "ret" might be uninitialized. I can see why it
> generates the warning, but I don't know if it's actually possible.
> Anyway initializing "ret" here is harmless.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c
> index 1c488024c698..fc58d660692f 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c
> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c
> @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ static int __qcom_mdt_load(struct device *dev, const struct firmware *fw,
>
> if (reloc_base)
> *reloc_base = mem_reloc;
> -
> + ret = 0;
You are overriding the value here, better keep it at the start.
Thanks,
Mukesh
> out:
> kfree(fw_name);
>
On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 02:47:39PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
>
> On 4/4/2019 2:12 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > Smatch complains that "ret" might be uninitialized. I can see why it
> > generates the warning, but I don't know if it's actually possible.
> > Anyway initializing "ret" here is harmless.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c
> > index 1c488024c698..fc58d660692f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c
> > +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c
> > @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ static int __qcom_mdt_load(struct device *dev, const struct firmware *fw,
> > if (reloc_base)
> > *reloc_base = mem_reloc;
> > -
> > + ret = 0;
>
>
> You are overriding the value here, better keep it at the start.
I like how I wrote it. It makes it clear that this is the success path.
regards,
dan carpenter
On 4/4/2019 3:06 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 02:47:39PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
>> On 4/4/2019 2:12 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>> Smatch complains that "ret" might be uninitialized. I can see why it
>>> generates the warning, but I don't know if it's actually possible.
>>> Anyway initializing "ret" here is harmless.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c
>>> index 1c488024c698..fc58d660692f 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c
>>> @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ static int __qcom_mdt_load(struct device *dev, const struct firmware *fw,
>>> if (reloc_base)
>>> *reloc_base = mem_reloc;
>>> -
>>> + ret = 0;
>>
>> You are overriding the value here, better keep it at the start.
> I like how I wrote it. It makes it clear that this is the success path.
But think about a case when this request_firmware_into_buf fails or the
snippet above that can set the ret with error value
right.. is not that possible?..and ret = 0 stops propagating the error
properly.
Thanks
Mukesh
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 12:38:19PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
>
> On 4/4/2019 3:06 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 02:47:39PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> > > On 4/4/2019 2:12 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > Smatch complains that "ret" might be uninitialized. I can see why it
> > > > generates the warning, but I don't know if it's actually possible.
> > > > Anyway initializing "ret" here is harmless.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c | 2 +-
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c
> > > > index 1c488024c698..fc58d660692f 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c
> > > > @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ static int __qcom_mdt_load(struct device *dev, const struct firmware *fw,
> > > > if (reloc_base)
> > > > *reloc_base = mem_reloc;
> > > > -
> > > > + ret = 0;
> > >
> > > You are overriding the value here, better keep it at the start.
> > I like how I wrote it. It makes it clear that this is the success path.
>
>
> But think about a case when this request_firmware_into_buf fails or the
> snippet above that can set the ret with error value
>
> right.. is not that possible?..and ret = 0 stops propagating the error
> properly.
>
Gar. I read "goto out;" instead of "break;". It probably should be
goto out though... Anyway, I will resend.
Thanks!
regards,
dan carpenter