linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] power: supply: ab8500: Drop pointless static qualifier in ab8500_btemp_batctrl_volt_to

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: <20191204063240.GJ1787@kadam>
Date:   Wed, 4 Dec 2019 09:32:40 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Mao Wenan <maowenan@...wei.com>
Cc:     sre@...nel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] power: supply: ab8500: Drop pointless static
 qualifier in ab8500_btemp_batctrl_volt_to_res()

On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 09:30:58AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 09:05:06AM +0800, Mao Wenan wrote:
> > There is no need to have the 'T *v' variable static
> > since new value always be assigned before use it.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Mao Wenan <maowenan@...wei.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/power/supply/ab8500_btemp.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/ab8500_btemp.c b/drivers/power/supply/ab8500_btemp.c
> > index 909f0242bacb..d3d4f7327d1b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/power/supply/ab8500_btemp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/power/supply/ab8500_btemp.c
> > @@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ static int ab8500_btemp_batctrl_volt_to_res(struct ab8500_btemp *di,
> >  static int ab8500_btemp_read_batctrl_voltage(struct ab8500_btemp *di)
> >  {
> >  	int vbtemp, ret;
> > -	static int prev;
> > +	int prev;
> 
> No.  We use it first on linux-next (yesterday).  It needs to be static.
> 

It's surprising that your patch didn't cause an uninitialized variable
compile warning for you.

regards,
dan carpenter