On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 03:01:23PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > "ret" isn't necessarily initialized on the success path. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > The patch seems correct, but do you have any idea why gcc-7 didn't > warn about this? Heh... I'm not a gcc dev. Checking for uninitialized variables is harder than I would have thought though.. > I assume that you found it with smatch, and nobody else did. Yep. I'm getting close to releasing my uninitialized variable check. I guess the one thing holding me back is that I still have tons of false positives caused by mismatches between "if (ret)" and "if (ret < 0)" where the function assumes that non-zero is an error but the caller assumes that errors are negative. regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
