On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 5:58 PM coverity-bot <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello! > > This is an experimental semi-automated report about issues detected by > Coverity from a scan of next-20200417 as part of the linux-next scan project: > https://scan.coverity.com/projects/linux-next-weekly-scan > > You're getting this email because you were associated with the identified > lines of code (noted below) that were touched by commits: > > Tue Apr 14 11:28:42 2020 -0400 > 96d7c7b3e654 ("gpio: gpio-pca953x, Add get_multiple function") > > Coverity reported the following: > > *** CID 1492652: Uninitialized variables (UNINIT) > /drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c: 499 in pca953x_gpio_get_multiple() > 493 if (ret < 0) > 494 return ret; > 495 } > 496 /* reg_val is relative to the last read byte, > 497 * so only shift the relative bits > 498 */ > vvv CID 1492652: Uninitialized variables (UNINIT) > vvv Using uninitialized value "reg_val". > 499 value = (reg_val >> (i % 8)) & 0x01; > 500 __assign_bit(i, bits, value); > 501 } > 502 return ret; > 503 } > 504 Well for this case it is forced on the first pass with offset = gc->ngpio; so 'i' in the for_each_set_bit() loop will always be at lest 1 less than gc->ngpio. However, I could see how this is a little are hard for a detection tool to follow through: offset = gc->ngpio; for_each_set_bit(i, mask, gc->ngpio) { if ((offset >> BANK_SFT) != (i >> BANK_SFT)) { These tools are very cool, and I'd like fix the detection one way or another. Any suggestions on a better syntax? thanks, Paul
