Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220209163029.2299009-1-trix@redhat.com> <YgPs8U85ZFbDWYlx@sirena.org.uk>
 <61a545d5-224d-86fb-2fe3-406c3ffd78fb@redhat.com> <YgP0JOilWpKU4704@sirena.org.uk>
 <CAGcXWkyCQ4JExvHv3cEL7vLMOcq_iPu0vOyOmnfzbQmMxHEp=Q@mail.gmail.com> <27a1822d798641f5bba33d7529ec02c0@sphcmbx02.sunplus.com.tw>
In-Reply-To: <27a1822d798641f5bba33d7529ec02c0@sphcmbx02.sunplus.com.tw>
From:   =?UTF-8?B?6YOt5Yqb6LGq?= <lhjeff911@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:45:46 +0800
Message-ID: <CAGcXWkyF8FdRNP7=pcLQw339QpVX82op+zEMS7KrXXZJ8SLMQw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: initialize ret variable
To:     =?UTF-8?B?TGggS3VvIOmDreWKm+ixqg==?= <lh.Kuo@sunplus.com>
Cc:     Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>, "nathan@kernel.org" <nathan@kernel.org>,
        "ndesaulniers@google.com" <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        "linux-spi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-spi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "llvm@lists.linux.dev" <llvm@lists.linux.dev>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

>Yes, that's what I'm asking.


>The original setting was ret=0; I just wanted to remove it when defining

>the ret, but it looks like it's required.

>Yes, it should return error at default


>I will submit new patch for this.


> The old behavior returned 0 and I am treating this as a regression.

The goal here isn't just to shut up warnings, it's to fix any problems
that they identify.  Unconditionally initialising return values is a
common way of fixing warnings while leaving real problems in place.


The original setting was ret=0; I just wanted to remove it when defining

the ret, but it looks like it's required.

Yes, it should return error at default


I will submit new patch for this.