[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20101110083814.55e222c4.rdunlap@xenotime.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 08:38:14 -0800
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
To: Marek Belisko <marek.belisko@...il.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] staging: ft1000: Fix compilation warning.
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 11:15:26 +0100 Marek Belisko wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Marek Belisko <marek.belisko@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/staging/ft1000/ft1000-usb/ft1000_usb.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
a. always include the warning or error message that the patch fixes
b. (quoting from another email yesterday:)
so in your analysis of this compiler warning, was the warning correct & justified,
or was it false? I.e., is the init to NULL needed?
If it was false, could we just silence the warning by using:
struct ft1000_info *unitialized_var(pft1000info);
plus #include <linux/compiler.h> ?
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/ft1000/ft1000-usb/ft1000_usb.c b/drivers/staging/ft1000/ft1000-usb/ft1000_usb.c
> index 99e3339..b7c4602 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/ft1000/ft1000-usb/ft1000_usb.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/ft1000/ft1000-usb/ft1000_usb.c
> @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ static int ft1000_probe(struct usb_interface *interface,
> int i, ret = 0, size;
>
> struct ft1000_device *ft1000dev;
> - struct ft1000_info *pft1000info;
> + struct ft1000_info *pft1000info = NULL;
> const struct firmware *dsp_fw;
>
> ft1000dev = kmalloc(sizeof(struct ft1000_device), GFP_KERNEL);
> --
---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists