Re: [RESEND PATCH v3 05/11] mtd: rawnand: vf610_nfc: add initializer to avoid -Wmaybe-uninitialized

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Miquel,

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:14 PM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Masahiro,
>
> Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Tue, 23 Apr
> 2019 12:49:53 +0900:
>
> > This prepares to move CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING from x86 to a common
> > place. We need to eliminate potential issues beforehand.
> >
> > Kbuild test robot has never reported -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning
> > for this probably because vf610_nfc_run() is inlined by the x86
> > compiler's inlining heuristic.
> >
> > If CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING is enabled for a different architecture
> > and vf610_nfc_run() is not inlined, the following warning is reported:
> >
> > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/vf610_nfc.c: In function ‘vf610_nfc_cmd’:
> > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/vf610_nfc.c:455:3: warning: ‘offset’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
> >    vf610_nfc_rd_from_sram(instr->ctx.data.buf.in + offset,
> >    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >             nfc->regs + NFC_MAIN_AREA(0) + offset,
> >             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >             trfr_sz, !nfc->data_access);
> >             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> IMHO this patch has no dependencies with this series.


This patch is the prerequisite for 11/11.
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1064959/


Without the correct patch order,
the kbuild test robot reports the warning.


> Would you mind sending it alone with the proper Fixes tag?


I do not think Fixes is necessary.

Nobody has noticed this potential issue before.
Without 11/11, probably we cannot reproduce this warning.


BTW, this series has been for a while in linux-next.


>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > Changes in v3: None
> > Changes in v2:
> >   - split into a separate patch
> >
> >  drivers/mtd/nand/raw/vf610_nfc.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/vf610_nfc.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/vf610_nfc.c
> > index a662ca1970e5..19792d725ec2 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/vf610_nfc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/vf610_nfc.c
> > @@ -364,7 +364,7 @@ static int vf610_nfc_cmd(struct nand_chip *chip,
> >  {
> >       const struct nand_op_instr *instr;
> >       struct vf610_nfc *nfc = chip_to_nfc(chip);
> > -     int op_id = -1, trfr_sz = 0, offset;
> > +     int op_id = -1, trfr_sz = 0, offset = 0;
> >       u32 col = 0, row = 0, cmd1 = 0, cmd2 = 0, code = 0;
> >       bool force8bit = false;
> >
>
> Thanks,
> Miquèl
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Linux MTD discussion mailing list
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/



--
Best Regards

Masahiro Yamada

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/




[Index of Archives]     [LARTC]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [Photo]

  Powered by Linux