2013-11-09 16:16 keltezéssel, Mark Brown írta:
> On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 09:49:11AM +0000, Caizhiyong wrote:
>
>> @@ -2170,7 +2170,8 @@ int regmap_register_patch(struct regmap *map, const
>> struct reg_default *regs,
>> int num_regs)
>> {
>> struct reg_default *p;
>> - int i, ret;
>> + int i;
>> + int ret = 0;
>> bool bypass;
Wouldn't the following be better?
int i, ret = 0;
I think it is more readable.
>
> This sort of fix isn't ideal, it just silences the warning but if the
> compiler has spotted a genuine oversight in the function it won't
> address it. It's better to include some analysis of why this is a good
> fix.
>
The only condition when 'ret' is not set is when the num_regs parameter is zero
and krealloc doesn't fail. If the above two conditions apply, then
the code would return an uninitialized value. However, calling this function
with
num_regs == 0, would be a waste as it essentially does nothing.
Also, I think code which throws warnings is worse than code
which doesn't.
--
Regards,
Levente Kurusa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
