linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] IB/mlx5: avoid bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <4613531.FpoFIBnNDo@wuerfel>
Date:   Mon, 24 Oct 2016 22:46:26 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Matan Barak <matanb@...lanox.com>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
        Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagig@...lanox.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>,
        Noa Osherovich <noaos@...lanox.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/mlx5: avoid bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning

On Monday, October 24, 2016 8:06:42 PM CEST Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> 
> Acked-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>

Thanks!

> >  drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> >  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> > index d4ad672b905b..88d8d292677b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c
> > @@ -815,29 +815,33 @@ static void prep_umr_unreg_wqe(struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev,
> >       umrwr->mkey = key;
> >  }
> >
> > -static struct ib_umem *mr_umem_get(struct ib_pd *pd, u64 start, u64 length,
> > -                                int access_flags, int *npages,
> > -                                int *page_shift, int *ncont, int *order)
> > +static int mr_umem_get(struct ib_pd *pd, u64 start, u64 length,
> > +                    int access_flags, struct ib_umem ** umem,
> 
> I wonder if checkpatch does differentiate between "struct ib_umem ** umem"
> and "struct ib_umem **umem". According to coding style, the second is preferable.

It was unintended, I'll send a v2 patch in a minute.

	Arnd