On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 06:29:20PM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On July 2, 2024 3:57:27 PM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 08:24:44PM +0800, Su Hui wrote: > >>> brcmf_fil_cmd_int_get() reads the value of 'io_type' and passes it to > >>> brcmf_fil_cmd_data_get(). Initialize 'io_type' to avoid garbage value. > >> > >> Since you're going to be resending anyway, please delete the space char > >> from the start of the line. > >> > >> It's weird that brcmf_fil_cmd_data_get() uses the uninitialized data. > >> It looks like it just goes to great lengths to preserve the original > >> data in io_type... So it likely is harmless enough but still a strange > >> and complicated way write a no-op. > > > > Not sure if it helps, but I tried to explain the reason in response to > > patch 0 (cover letter). > > Would it make more sense to have just one patch? It's the same issue > anyway. The Fixes tags are different though. I'd probably leave them as separate patches just because of that. regards, dan carpenter
