On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 11:18:16AM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote: > On 2020/10/23 19:22, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > Smatch complains that "ret" might be uninitialized if we don't enter > > the loop. We do always enter the loop so it's a false positive, but > > it's cleaner to just return a literal zero and that silences the > > warning as well. > > Thanks for the clean up. Minor comment below: > Perhap it makes sense to limit ret scope within the for loop after > returning zero. > It's not really normal to limit ret scope... I think it's better to leave it as-is. regards, dan carpenter
