Return-path: Received: from mail-pv0-f174.google.com ([74.125.83.174]:43200 "EHLO mail-pv0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932315Ab1D2TVs (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:21:48 -0400 Received: by pvg12 with SMTP id 12so2411733pvg.19 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 12:21:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4DBB0FC7.8040809@lwfinger.net> (sfid-20110429_212151_860599_0B7C748E) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:21:43 -0500 From: Larry Finger MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "John W. Linville" CC: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= , Michael Buesch Subject: Re: [PATCH] b43: avoid uninitialized variable warnings in phy_n References: <1304103559-28415-1-git-send-email-linville@tuxdriver.com> In-Reply-To: <1304103559-28415-1-git-send-email-linville@tuxdriver.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 04/29/2011 01:59 PM, John W. Linville wrote: > CC [M] drivers/net/wireless/b43/phy_n.o > drivers/net/wireless/b43/phy_n.c: In function ‘b43_nphy_set_channel’: > drivers/net/wireless/b43/phy_n.c:3848:47: warning: ‘tabent_r2’ may be used uninitialized in this function > drivers/net/wireless/b43/phy_n.c:3849:47: warning: ‘tabent_r3’ may be used uninitialized in this function > drivers/net/wireless/b43/phy_n.c: In function ‘b43_nphy_poll_rssi.clone.14’: > drivers/net/wireless/b43/phy_n.c:2270:6: warning: ‘save_regs_phy$7’ may be used uninitialized in this function > drivers/net/wireless/b43/phy_n.c:2270:6: warning: ‘save_regs_phy$8’ may be used uninitialized in this function > > FWIW, the usage of these variables is goverened by checks that match > their initializations. So, I think these are actually false warnings. > Still, I would rather avoid the warning SPAM... > > Signed-off-by: John W. Linville > --- > drivers/net/wireless/b43/phy_n.c | 7 +++++-- > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > If you s/goverened/governed/ in the commit message, then ACK. For my info, what compiler version and architecture shows these warnings? I don't see them with gcc v4.5.1 on x86_64. Larry