On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 03:19:49PM +0200, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 07:08:15AM +0200, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
>> >> This commit change init point of two variables to forward them to
>> >> init time. This variables are just being assigned some lines after
>> >> and it is more clear to init them when the init value is known and
>> >> in this case this is known when they are declared.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >> ---
>> >> drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c | 7 ++-----
>> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c
>> >> index 11839af..18e2350 100644
>> >> --- a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c
>> >> +++ b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c
>> >> @@ -981,14 +981,11 @@ static void ks7010_private_init(struct ks_wlan_private *priv,
>> >> static int ks7010_sdio_probe(struct sdio_func *func,
>> >> const struct sdio_device_id *device)
>> >> {
>> >> - struct ks_wlan_private *priv;
>> >> + struct ks_wlan_private *priv = NULL;
>> >> + struct net_device *netdev = NULL;
>> >> struct ks_sdio_card *card;
>> >> - struct net_device *netdev;
>> >> int ret;
>> >>
>> >> - priv = NULL;
>> >> - netdev = NULL;
>> >
>> > It's better if we don't initialize these at all. There is a bug here
>> > and GCC finds it when these aren't initialized to bogus values:
>> >
>> > drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c: In function ‘ks7010_sdio_probe’:
>> > drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c:932:2: warning: ‘priv’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>>
>> I see... but I am not getting any warning in my tree making them
>> initialized. Am I missing something?
>>
>
> It's possible that someone fixed them. I pulled from Greg's
> staging-next and it was still buggy but I remember someone sending
> patches for these.
>
> Anyway, the point is the same either way. Don't initialize variables if
> you don't need to because it disable's GCC static analysis for
> uninitialized variable bugs.
Get it! I'll take this into account from now. Thanks!
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
Best regards,
Sergio Paracuellos
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
