[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131121162535.GK26009@pd.tnic>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:25:35 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
DRI mailing list <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i915, debugfs: Fix uninitialized warning
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 05:10:30PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > index 6ed45a984230..1191aa47adc9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> > @@ -2347,7 +2347,7 @@ static int pipe_crc_set_source(struct drm_device *dev, enum pipe pipe,
> > {
> > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> > struct intel_pipe_crc *pipe_crc = &dev_priv->pipe_crc[pipe];
> > - u32 val;
> > + u32 val = 0; /* shut up gcc */
>
> Wouldn't it be better to use uninitialized_var() here?
I remember Linus' rant about this macro so that's why I don't use it
anymore.
In this specific case, it doesn't matter whichever we do so I'll let the
maintainer make a wish :)
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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