On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 01:06:01PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > #2
> > In the past, it's been pointed out to me during code review that I tend
> > to add code comments which could be omitted. In this case, the for-loop
> > seemed a bit odd without explaining why it's in there. Let me know if
> > you think I should keep/remove it.
>
> Remove. Everyone knows what dev_dbg() does and the "read from fifo"
> vs "written from[sic] fifo" is built into the function name.
>
fair enough
> > int rf69_read_fifo(struct spi_device *spi, u8 *buffer, unsigned int size)
> > {
> > -#ifdef DEBUG_FIFO_ACCESS
> > int i;
> > -#endif
> > struct spi_transfer transfer;
> > u8 local_buffer[FIFO_SIZE + 1];
>
> You did not introduce this but we are potentially printing out
> uninitialized data if spi_sync_transfer() fails. Please initialize this
> with:
>
> u8 local_buffer[FIFO_SIZE + 1] = {};
>
> Do that in a separate patch, though.
>
good point, will do. Thanks a lot :)
thanks,
Paulo Almeida
