Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:42:00 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pcmcia@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/28] pcmcia: fix return value of
 soc_pcmcia_regulator_set
Message-ID: <20161018094159.GK1041@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
References: <20161017220342.1627073-1-arnd@arndb.de>
 <20161017221355.1861551-4-arnd@arndb.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161017221355.1861551-4-arnd@arndb.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1231
Lines: 25

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:13:37AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> The newly introduced soc_pcmcia_regulator_set() function sometimes returns
> without setting its return code, as shown by this warning:
> 
> drivers/pcmcia/soc_common.c: In function 'soc_pcmcia_regulator_set':
> drivers/pcmcia/soc_common.c:112:5: error: 'ret' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> 
> This changes it to propagate the regulator_disable() result instead.

I guess this is the problem with the stupid patch which silences this
warning - I don't see this warning here.

Having this warning disabled means that _real_ coding errors end up
making their way into the kernel (yes, this should be an error, this
is not a warning, because the value of 'ret' is completely undefined,
and therefore the behaviour of the following code is undefined.)

With the warning silenced, it means that such errors are undetectable.
I knew nothing about this until I received this patch, and I always
check that the code I send is warning-free on the GCC I'm using.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.