Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 9 Apr 2021 11:45:41 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To:     Rijo Thomas <Rijo-john.Thomas@amd.com>
Cc:     Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@linaro.org>,
        Devaraj Rangasamy <Devaraj.Rangasamy@amd.com>,
        Mythri Pandeshwara krishna <mythri.pandeshwarakrishna@amd.com>,
        op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tee: amdtee: unload TA only when its refcount becomes
 0
Message-ID: <20210409084541.GE6048@kadam>
References: <3150feb19421ca6b15202c853215f8b40fe35567.1617615067.git.Rijo-john.Thomas@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3150feb19421ca6b15202c853215f8b40fe35567.1617615067.git.Rijo-john.Thomas@amd.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 03:13:09PM +0530, Rijo Thomas wrote:
> @@ -340,7 +398,8 @@ int handle_open_session(struct tee_ioctl_open_session_arg *arg, u32 *info,
> 
>  int handle_load_ta(void *data, u32 size, struct tee_ioctl_open_session_arg *arg)
>  {
> -	struct tee_cmd_load_ta cmd = {0};
> +	struct tee_cmd_unload_ta unload_cmd = {0};
> +	struct tee_cmd_load_ta load_cmd = {0};

It's better style to write:

	struct tee_cmd_unload_ta unload_cmd = {};

It doesn't make a difference in this case, but if the first struct
member is a pointer then {0} can generate a Sparse warning.  Or
depending on which bugs your version of GCC has it can affect whether
struct holes are initialized.  But mostly it's just the prefered style.


regards,
dan carpenter