[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGcXWkyF8FdRNP7=pcLQw339QpVX82op+zEMS7KrXXZJ8SLMQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:45:46 +0800
From: 郭力豪 <lhjeff911@...il.com>
To: Lh Kuo 郭力豪 <lh.Kuo@...plus.com>
Cc: Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, "nathan@...nel.org" <nathan@...nel.org>,
"ndesaulniers@...gle.com" <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
"linux-spi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"llvm@...ts.linux.dev" <llvm@...ts.linux.dev>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: initialize ret variable
>Yes, that's what I'm asking.
>The original setting was ret=0; I just wanted to remove it when defining
>the ret, but it looks like it's required.
>Yes, it should return error at default
>I will submit new patch for this.
> The old behavior returned 0 and I am treating this as a regression.
The goal here isn't just to shut up warnings, it's to fix any problems
that they identify. Unconditionally initialising return values is a
common way of fixing warnings while leaving real problems in place.
The original setting was ret=0; I just wanted to remove it when defining
the ret, but it looks like it's required.
Yes, it should return error at default
I will submit new patch for this.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists