Hi! > Most likely yes but I wanted to keep sha1_ssse3_mod_init consistent > with sha256_ssse3_mod_init/sha512_ssse3_mod_init functions. > > > Reported-by: <scan-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Milos Vyletel <milos.vyletel@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > arch/x86/crypto/sha1_ssse3_glue.c | 22 ++++++++++++---------- > > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/crypto/sha1_ssse3_glue.c > > b/arch/x86/crypto/sha1_ssse3_glue.c > > > index 74d16ef..5352196 100644 > > > --- a/arch/x86/crypto/sha1_ssse3_glue.c > > > +++ b/arch/x86/crypto/sha1_ssse3_glue.c > > > @@ -235,31 +235,33 @@ static bool __init avx2_usable(void) > > > > > > static int __init sha1_ssse3_mod_init(void) > > > { > > > - char *algo_name; > > > - > > > > Would simple "algo_name = NULL" be enough to fix this? Dunno. I'd say that single-line change that is obviously right is preferable to rewrite inspired by some other function. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-coverity" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html