linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/7] mfd: ds90ux9xx: add TI DS90Ux9xx de-/serializer MFD driver

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]

Message-ID: <69f6121a-7d9b-b85c-ddc3-9d88986e0433@mleia.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Oct 2018 14:14:12 +0300
From:   Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@...ia.com>
To:     kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Cc:     kbuild-all@...org, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] mfd: ds90ux9xx: add TI DS90Ux9xx de-/serializer MFD
 driver

On 10/09/2018 07:08 AM, kbuild test robot wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
> 
> I love your patch! Perhaps something to improve:
> 
> [auto build test WARNING on ljones-mfd/for-mfd-next]
> [also build test WARNING on v4.19-rc7 next-20181008]
> [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system]
> 
> url:    https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Vladimir-Zapolskiy/mfd-pinctrl-add-initial-support-of-TI-DS90Ux9xx-ICs/20181009-090135
> base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lee/mfd.git for-mfd-next
> config: i386-allyesconfig (attached as .config)
> compiler: gcc-7 (Debian 7.3.0-1) 7.3.0
> reproduce:
>         # save the attached .config to linux build tree
>         make ARCH=i386 
> 
> Note: it may well be a FALSE warning. FWIW you are at least aware of it now.
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Better_Uninitialized_Warnings
> 

And it is a false positive.

--
Best wishes,
Vladimir