Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/28] [v2] infiniband: shut up a maybe-uninitialized
 warning
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
References: <20161017220342.1627073-1-arnd@arndb.de>
 <20161017220557.1688282-3-arnd@arndb.de>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@intel.com>,
        "Hal Rosenstock" <hal.rosenstock@gmail.com>,
        Matan Barak <matanb@mellanox.com>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
        "Bart Van Assche" <bart.vanassche@sandisk.com>,
        Alex Vesker <valex@mellanox.com>, Guy Shapiro <guysh@mellanox.com>,
        <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>
From: Haggai Eran <haggaie@mellanox.com>
Message-ID: <33302790-0a4c-e2b3-868d-3e7dadbd3c07@mellanox.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 09:47:31 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20161017220557.1688282-3-arnd@arndb.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Oct 2016 06:48:28.9032
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: a652971c-7d2e-4d9b-a6a4-d149256f461b
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=a652971c-7d2e-4d9b-a6a4-d149256f461b;Ip=[193.47.165.134];Helo=[mtlcas13.mtl.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB5PR05MB1095
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 485
Lines: 12

On 10/18/2016 1:05 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> @@ -1309,7 +1311,7 @@ static bool validate_net_dev(struct net_device *net_dev,
>  static struct net_device *cma_get_net_dev(struct ib_cm_event *ib_event,
>  					  const struct cma_req_info *req)
>  {
> -	struct sockaddr_storage listen_addr_storage, src_addr_storage;
> +	struct sockaddr_storage listen_addr_storage = {}, src_addr_storage = {};

Doesn't this still translate to an extra initialization that Doug was
worried about?

Haggai