Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 9:49:58 AM CEST Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > A bugfix added a sanity check around the assignment and use of the
>> > 'is_11d' variable, which looks correct to me, but as the function is
>> > rather complex already, this confuses the compiler to the point where
>> > it can no longer figure out if the variable is always initialized
>> > correctly:
>> >
>> > brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c: In function ‘brcmf_cfg80211_start_ap’:
>> > brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c:4586:10: error: ‘is_11d’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
>> >
>> > This adds an initialization for the newly introduced case in which
>> > the variable should not really be used, in order to make the warning
>> > go away.
>> >
>> > Fixes: b3589dfe0212 ("brcmfmac: ignore 11d configuration errors")
>> > Cc: Hante Meuleman <hante.meuleman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Cc: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Via which tree are you planning to submit this? Should I take it?
>
> I'd prefer if you can take it and forward it along with your other
> bugfixes. I'll try to take care of the ones that nobody else
> picked up.
Ok, I'll take it. I'm planning to push this to 4.9.
--
Kalle Valo
