[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9469876.gij7f9Mh1b@wuerfel>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 12:18:55 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Haggai Eran <haggaie@...lanox.com>
Cc: Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
Matan Barak <matanb@...lanox.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>,
Alex Vesker <valex@...lanox.com>,
Guy Shapiro <guysh@...lanox.com>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/28] [v2] infiniband: shut up a maybe-uninitialized warning
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 9:47:31 AM CEST Haggai Eran wrote:
> On 10/18/2016 1:05 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > @@ -1309,7 +1311,7 @@ static bool validate_net_dev(struct net_device *net_dev,
> > static struct net_device *cma_get_net_dev(struct ib_cm_event *ib_event,
> > const struct cma_req_info *req)
> > {
> > - struct sockaddr_storage listen_addr_storage, src_addr_storage;
> > + struct sockaddr_storage listen_addr_storage = {}, src_addr_storage = {};
>
> Doesn't this still translate to an extra initialization that Doug was
> worried about?
Thanks for spotting this. I must have screwed up while rebasing the patch
at some point, this one change should not be there, the other changes by
themselves sufficiently address the warning.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists