linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] PCI: iproc: avoid maybe-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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 22 Nov 2016 19:00:58 -0800
From:   Ray Jui <ray.jui@...adcom.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
        Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
        Jon Mason <jonmason@...adcom.com>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
        Oza Oza <oza.oza@...adcom.com>,
        "Dmitry V. Krivenok" <krivenok.dmitry@...il.com>,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] PCI: iproc: avoid maybe-uninitialized warning



On 11/22/2016 1:15 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 9:45:24 AM CET Ray Jui wrote:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.c b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.c
>>> index 857ff5198317..0359569c8d78 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.c
>>> @@ -936,6 +936,7 @@ static int iproc_pcie_setup_ib(struct iproc_pcie *pcie,
>>>  
>>>               }
>>>       }
>>> +     ret = -EINVAL;
>>>  err_ib:
>>>       dev_err(dev, "unable to configure inbound mapping\n");
>>>       dev_err(dev, "axi %pap, pci %pap, res size %pap\n",
>>>
>>
>> This change is good, but in my opinion, a further improvement for
>> clarity would be to initialize 'ret' to -EINVAL in the beginning of this
>> function when 'ret' is declared. What do you think?
>>
> 
> I never do that, see https://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=232 for a great
> explanation about why.
> 
> 	Arnd
> 

Okay got it. Thanks!

Ray