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-crypto" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
