On 2020-10-21 7:31 p.m., Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Otherwise the field ends up being used uninitialized when
enabling modifiers, failing validation with high likelyhood.
Signed-off-by: Bas Nieuwenhuizen <bas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fb.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fb.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fb.c
index e2c2eb45a793..77dd2a189746 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fb.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fb.c
@@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ static int amdgpufb_create(struct drm_fb_helper *helper,
struct amdgpu_device *adev = rfbdev->adev;
struct fb_info *info;
struct drm_framebuffer *fb = NULL;
- struct drm_mode_fb_cmd2 mode_cmd;
+ struct drm_mode_fb_cmd2 mode_cmd = {0};
I think we should prefer a memset in this case. I always forget which
compilers complain about this syntax but I know we've had to swap out a
bunch of zero initializers to satisfy them.
Regards,
Nicholas Kazlauskas
struct drm_gem_object *gobj = NULL;
struct amdgpu_bo *abo = NULL;
int ret;
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
