On 03/05/2021 12:55, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 11:13:12AM +0100, Khaled Romdhani wrote: >> On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 10:23:22AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: >>> On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 11:50:46PM +0100, Khaled ROMDHANI wrote: >>>> Fix the warning: variable 'zone' is used >>>> uninitialized whenever '?:' condition is true. >>>> >>>> Fix that by preventing the code to reach >>>> the last assertion. If the variable 'mirror' >>>> is invalid, the assertion fails and we return >>>> immediately. >>>> >>>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> Signed-off-by: Khaled ROMDHANI <khaledromdhani216@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>> >>> This is not how you send a v4 patch... v2 patches have to apply to the >>> original code and not on top of the patched code. >>> >>> I sort of think you should find a different thing to work on. This code >>> works fine as-is. Just leave it and try to find a real bug and fix that >>> instead. >>> >>> regards, >>> dan carpenter >>> >> >> Sorry, I was wrong and I shall send a proper V4. >> >> Yes, this code works fine just a warning caught by Coverity scan analysis. > > We're going to a lot of work to silence a static checker false positive. > As a rule, I tell people to ignore the static checker when it is wrong. > > Btw, Smatch parses this code correctly and understands that the callers > only pass valid values for "mirror". ..and Coverity does report a lot of false positives, so one needs to be really sure the issue is a genuine issue rather than a warning that can be ignore. Colin > > regards, > dan carpenter >
