[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87zilr61ux.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 09:49:58 +0300
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Hante Meuleman <hante.meuleman@...adcom.com>,
Franky Lin <franky.lin@...adcom.com>,
Pieter-Paul Giesberts <pieter-paul.giesberts@...adcom.com>,
"Franky \(Zhenhui\) Lin" <frankyl@...adcom.com>,
Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/28] brcmfmac: avoid maybe-uninitialized warning in brcmf_cfg80211_start_ap
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> writes:
> A bugfix added a sanity check around the assignment and use of the
> 'is_11d' variable, which looks correct to me, but as the function is
> rather complex already, this confuses the compiler to the point where
> it can no longer figure out if the variable is always initialized
> correctly:
>
> brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c: In function ‘brcmf_cfg80211_start_ap’:
> brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c:4586:10: error: ‘is_11d’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
>
> This adds an initialization for the newly introduced case in which
> the variable should not really be used, in order to make the warning
> go away.
>
> Fixes: b3589dfe0212 ("brcmfmac: ignore 11d configuration errors")
> Cc: Hante Meuleman <hante.meuleman@...adcom.com>
> Cc: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
> Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Via which tree are you planning to submit this? Should I take it?
--
Kalle Valo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists