On 11/11/16 19:49, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday, November 11, 2016 9:13:00 AM CET Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Please merge these directly if you are happy with the result.
>>
>> I will take this.
>
> Thanks a lot!
>
>> I do see two warnings, but they both seem to be valid and recent,
>> though, so I have no issues with the spurious cases.
>
> Ok, both of them should have my fixes coming your way already.
>
>> Warning #1:
>>
>> sound/soc/qcom/lpass-platform.c: In function ‘lpass_platform_pcmops_open’:
>> sound/soc/qcom/lpass-platform.c:83:29: warning: ‘dma_ch’ may be used
>> uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>> drvdata->substream[dma_ch] = substream;
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> and 'dma_ch' usage there really is crazy and wrong. Broken by
>> 022d00ee0b55 ("ASoC: lpass-platform: Fix broken pcm data usage")
>
> Right, the patches crossed here, the bugfix patch that introduced
> this came into linux-next over the kernel summit, and the fix I
> sent on Tuesday made it into Mark Brown's tree on Wednesday but not
> before you pulled alsa tree. It should be fixed the next time you
> pull from the alsa tree, the commit is
>
> 3b89e4b77ef9 ("ASoC: lpass-platform: initialize dma channel number")
>
>> Warning #2 is not a real bug, but it's reasonable that gcc doesn't
>> know that storage_bytes (chip->read_size) has to be 2/4. Again,
>> introduced recently by commit 231147ee77f3 ("iio: maxim_thermocouple:
>> Align 16 bit big endian value of raw reads"), so you didn't see it.
>
> This is the one I mentioned in the commit message as one that
> is fixed in linux-next and that should make it in soon.
>
>> drivers/iio/temperature/maxim_thermocouple.c: In function
>> ‘maxim_thermocouple_read_raw’:
>> drivers/iio/temperature/maxim_thermocouple.c:141:5: warning: ‘ret’
>> may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>> if (ret)
>> ^
>> drivers/iio/temperature/maxim_thermocouple.c:128:6: note: ‘ret’ was
>> declared here
>> int ret;
>> ^~~
>>
>> and I guess that code can just initialize 'ret' to '-EINVAL' or
>> something to just make the theoretical "somehow we had a wrong
>> chip->read_size" case error out cleanly.
>
> Right, that was my conclusion too. I sent the bugfix on Oct 25
> for linux-next but it didn't make it in until this Monday, after
> you pulled the patch that introduced it on Oct 29.
>
> The commit in staging-testing is
> 32cb7d27e65d ("iio: maxim_thermocouple: detect invalid storage size in read()")
>
> Greg and Jonathan, I see now that this is part of the 'iio-for-4.10b'
> branch, so I suspect you were not planning to send this before the
> merge window. Could you make sure this ends up in v4.9 so we get
> a clean build when -Wmaybe-uninitialized gets enabled again?
I'll queue this up and send a pull to Greg tomorrow.
Was highly doubtful that a false warning suppression (be it an
understandable one) was worth sending mid cycle, hence it was
taking the slow route.
Jonathan
>
> Arnd
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
