2007-11-10 15:14:54

by Michael Büsch

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH] b43: silence a bogus gcc warning

=46rom: Frank Lichtenheld <[email protected]>

inititalise ret to 0 to avoid the following bogus warning:
CC [M] drivers/net/wireless/b43/debugfs.o
drivers/net/wireless/b43/debugfs.c: In function =E2=80=98b43_debugfs_re=
ad=E2=80=99:
drivers/net/wireless/b43/debugfs.c:355: warning: =E2=80=98ret=E2=80=99 =
may be used uninitialized in this function

Signed-off-by: Frank Lichtenheld <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Michael Buesch <[email protected]>

---
drivers/net/wireless/b43/debugfs.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/b43/debugfs.c b/drivers/net/wireless/=
b43/debugfs.c
index 734e70e..d8ac058 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/b43/debugfs.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/b43/debugfs.c
@@ -352,7 +352,7 @@ static ssize_t b43_debugfs_read(struct file *file, =
char __user *userbuf,
struct b43_wldev *dev;
struct b43_debugfs_fops *dfops;
struct b43_dfs_file *dfile;
- ssize_t ret;
+ ssize_t ret =3D 0;
char *buf;
const size_t bufsize =3D 1024 * 128;
const size_t buforder =3D get_order(bufsize);
--=20
1.5.3.4



-------------------------------------------------------

--=20
Greetings Michael.


2007-11-12 10:13:00

by Frank Lichtenheld

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH] b43: silence a bogus gcc warning

use uninitialized_var() to avoid the following bogus warning:
CC [M] drivers/net/wireless/b43/debugfs.o
drivers/net/wireless/b43/debugfs.c: In function =E2=80=98b43_debugfs_re=
ad=E2=80=99:
drivers/net/wireless/b43/debugfs.c:355: warning: =E2=80=98ret=E2=80=99 =
may be used uninitialized in this function

Signed-off-by: Michael Buesch <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Frank Lichtenheld <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/wireless/b43/debugfs.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

Changed to use uninitialized_var()

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/b43/debugfs.c b/drivers/net/wireless/=
b43/debugfs.c
index ef0075d..f84d063 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/b43/debugfs.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/b43/debugfs.c
@@ -352,7 +352,7 @@ static ssize_t b43_debugfs_read(struct file *file, =
char __user *userbuf,
struct b43_wldev *dev;
struct b43_debugfs_fops *dfops;
struct b43_dfs_file *dfile;
- ssize_t ret;
+ ssize_t uninitialized_var(ret);
char *buf;
const size_t bufsize =3D 1024 * 128;
const size_t buforder =3D get_order(bufsize);
--=20
1.5.3.4

2007-11-10 16:28:24

by Michael Büsch

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] b43: silence a bogus gcc warning

On Saturday 10 November 2007 16:25:33 John W. Linville wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 04:14:03PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > From: Frank Lichtenheld <[email protected]>
> >=20
> > inititalise ret to 0 to avoid the following bogus warning:
> > CC [M] drivers/net/wireless/b43/debugfs.o
> > drivers/net/wireless/b43/debugfs.c: In function =E2=80=98b43_debugf=
s_read=E2=80=99:
> > drivers/net/wireless/b43/debugfs.c:355: warning: =E2=80=98ret=E2=80=
=99 may be used uninitialized in this function
> >=20
> > Signed-off-by: Frank Lichtenheld <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Buesch <[email protected]>
>=20
> Isn't this what uninitialized_var() is for?
>=20

I'd be OK with that, too.

--=20
Greetings Michael.

2007-11-11 09:46:39

by Frank Lichtenheld

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] b43: silence a bogus gcc warning

On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 05:27:43PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Saturday 10 November 2007 16:25:33 John W. Linville wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 04:14:03PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > From: Frank Lichtenheld <[email protected]>
> > >=20
> > > inititalise ret to 0 to avoid the following bogus warning:
> > > CC [M] drivers/net/wireless/b43/debugfs.o
> > > drivers/net/wireless/b43/debugfs.c: In function =E2=80=98b43_debu=
gfs_read=E2=80=99:
> > > drivers/net/wireless/b43/debugfs.c:355: warning: =E2=80=98ret=E2=80=
=99 may be used uninitialized in this function
> > >=20
> > > Signed-off-by: Frank Lichtenheld <[email protected]>
> > > Signed-off-by: Michael Buesch <[email protected]>
> >=20
> > Isn't this what uninitialized_var() is for?

Erh, I didn't actually knew that existed, sorry.
OTOH in this case it is actually longer to write.

> I'd be OK with that, too.

Should I send a changed patch?

Gruesse,
--=20
=46rank Lichtenheld <[email protected]>
www: http://www.djpig.de/

2007-11-10 15:25:54

by John W. Linville

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] b43: silence a bogus gcc warning

On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 04:14:03PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> From: Frank Lichtenheld <[email protected]>
>=20
> inititalise ret to 0 to avoid the following bogus warning:
> CC [M] drivers/net/wireless/b43/debugfs.o
> drivers/net/wireless/b43/debugfs.c: In function =E2=80=98b43_debugfs_=
read=E2=80=99:
> drivers/net/wireless/b43/debugfs.c:355: warning: =E2=80=98ret=E2=80=99=
may be used uninitialized in this function
>=20
> Signed-off-by: Frank Lichtenheld <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Buesch <[email protected]>

Isn't this what uninitialized_var() is for?

--=20
John W. Linville
[email protected]

2007-11-11 11:25:05

by Michael Büsch

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] b43: silence a bogus gcc warning

On Sunday 11 November 2007 10:27:03 Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 05:27:43PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 November 2007 16:25:33 John W. Linville wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 04:14:03PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > > From: Frank Lichtenheld <[email protected]>
> > > >=20
> > > > inititalise ret to 0 to avoid the following bogus warning:
> > > > CC [M] drivers/net/wireless/b43/debugfs.o
> > > > drivers/net/wireless/b43/debugfs.c: In function =E2=80=98b43_de=
bugfs_read=E2=80=99:
> > > > drivers/net/wireless/b43/debugfs.c:355: warning: =E2=80=98ret=E2=
=80=99 may be used uninitialized in this function
> > > >=20
> > > > Signed-off-by: Frank Lichtenheld <[email protected]>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Michael Buesch <[email protected]>
> > >=20
> > > Isn't this what uninitialized_var() is for?
>=20
> Erh, I didn't actually knew that existed, sorry.
> OTOH in this case it is actually longer to write.
>=20
> > I'd be OK with that, too.
>=20
> Should I send a changed patch?

Yes.

--=20
Greetings Michael.