On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 06:26:49PM +0200, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > On July 2, 2024 5:37:10 PM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. > > Depending how you look at the problem those tags are wrong. Tags are often unfair in that way where you could blame different commits and you have to pick one. We end up picking the practical commit instead of the most guilty commit. Like if you do a partial or incorrect fix normally you'll be blamed instead of the original patch which has no fix at all. It works because if the backporter hasn't tried to backport the partial fix, they don't care about the complete fix either. regards, dan carpenter
