On 2018/9/13 15:01, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 6:04 AM zhong jiang <zhongjiang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Fix the following compile warning:
>>
>> drivers/hid/hid-logitech-hidpp.c: In function ‘hi_res_scroll_enable’:
>> drivers/hid/hid-logitech-hidpp.c:2714:54: warning: ‘multiplier’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>> hidpp->vertical_wheel_counter.resolution_multiplier = multiplier;
>>
>> Signed-off-by: zhong jiang <zhongjiang@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/hid/hid-logitech-hidpp.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-hidpp.c b/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-hidpp.c
>> index 5f0c080..83c43dd 100644
>> --- a/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-hidpp.c
>> +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-hidpp.c
>> @@ -2696,7 +2696,7 @@ static int hi_res_scroll_look_up_microns(__u32 product_id)
>> static int hi_res_scroll_enable(struct hidpp_device *hidpp)
>> {
>> int ret;
>> - u8 multiplier;
>> + u8 uninitialized_var(multiplier);
> I think your patch is correct (multiplier will be set given the code
> path), but IMO, it feels terribly wrong to explicitly remove this
> warning this way. The problem is that if someone else adds a new piece
> of code, we might miss the fact that multiplier is not set and we
> might show garbage in the hid_info call.
Make sense.
>
> Why don't you initialize the value to 8 as in the 'else' statement and
> remove the now duplicated assignement in this else statement?
Will do in v2. Thank you for your suggestion.
Thanks,
zhong jiang
> Cheers,
> Benjamin
>
>> if (hidpp->quirks & HIDPP_QUIRK_HI_RES_SCROLL_X2121) {
>> ret = hidpp_hrw_set_wheel_mode(hidpp, false, true, false);
>> --
>> 1.7.12.4
>>
> .
>
