linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bluetooth: btmrvl

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100705092414.GY19184@bicker>
Date:	Mon, 5 Jul 2010 11:24:15 +0200
From:	Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
To:	Kulikov Vasiliy <segooon@...il.com>
Cc:	Kernel Janitors <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
	Bing Zhao <bzhao@...vell.com>,
	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	André Goddard Rosa <andre.goddard@...il.com>,
	Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>, linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bluetooth: btmrvl_sdio: silence warning

On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 12:01:22PM +0400, Kulikov Vasiliy wrote:
> Clone checking of ret to simplify the code.
> 
> This patch silences a compiler warning:
> drivers/bluetooth/btmrvl_sdio.c: In function ‘btmrvl_sdio_verify_fw_download’:
> drivers/bluetooth/btmrvl_sdio.c:80: warning: ‘fws1’ may be used uninitialized in this function
> drivers/bluetooth/btmrvl_sdio.c:80: note: ‘fws1’ was declared here
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kulikov Vasiliy <segooon@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/bluetooth/btmrvl_sdio.c |    6 +++---
>  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/btmrvl_sdio.c b/drivers/bluetooth/btmrvl_sdio.c
> index df0773e..47f0f91 100644
> --- a/drivers/bluetooth/btmrvl_sdio.c
> +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/btmrvl_sdio.c
> @@ -83,10 +83,10 @@ static int btmrvl_sdio_read_fw_status(struct btmrvl_sdio_card *card, u16 *dat)
>  	*dat = 0;
>  
>  	fws0 = sdio_readb(card->func, CARD_FW_STATUS0_REG, &ret);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return -EIO;

Normally it would be better to just "return ret;" here.  But the caller
doesn't use the return code so it doesn't really matter...

Reviewed-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>

regards,
dan carpenter

>  
> -	if (!ret)
> -		fws1 = sdio_readb(card->func, CARD_FW_STATUS1_REG, &ret);
> -
> +	fws1 = sdio_readb(card->func, CARD_FW_STATUS1_REG, &ret);
>  	if (ret)
>  		return -EIO;
>  

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/