Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:44:59 +0530
From:   SAURAV GIREPUNJE <saurav.girepunje@gmail.com>
To:     Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
Cc:     vireshk@kernel.org, elder@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        greybus-dev@lists.linaro.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: bootrom: fix uninitialized variables
Message-ID: <20200125121459.GA2792@google.com>
References: <20200125084403.GA3386@google.com>
 <20200125100011.GK8375@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200125100011.GK8375@localhost>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2-neo (NetBSD/sparc64)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 25/01/20 11:00 +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 02:14:03PM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote:
>> fix uninitialized variables issue found using static code analysis tool
>
>Which tool is that?
>
>> (error) Uninitialized variable: offset
>> (error) Uninitialized variable: size
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Saurav Girepunje <saurav.girepunje@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/staging/greybus/bootrom.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/bootrom.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/bootrom.c
>> index a8efb86..9eabeb3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/bootrom.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/bootrom.c
>> @@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ static int gb_bootrom_get_firmware(struct gb_operation *op)
>>   	struct gb_bootrom_get_firmware_request *firmware_request;
>>   	struct gb_bootrom_get_firmware_response *firmware_response;
>>   	struct device *dev = &op->connection->bundle->dev;
>> -	unsigned int offset, size;
>> +	unsigned int offset = 0, size = 0;
>>   	enum next_request_type next_request;
>>   	int ret = 0;
>
>I think this has come up in the past, and while the code in question is
>overly complicated and confuses static checkers as well as humans, it
>looks correct to me.
>
>Please make sure to verify the output of any tools before posting
>patches based on them.
>
>Johan
I used cppcheck tool .