From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965535AbcJXUqx (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2016 16:46:53 -0400 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.24]:63496 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965180AbcJXUqt (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2016 16:46:49 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Leon Romanovsky Cc: Matan Barak , Doug Ledford , Sean Hefty , Hal Rosenstock , Sagi Grimberg , Bart Van Assche , Noa Osherovich , Saeed Mahameed , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/mlx5: avoid bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 22:46:26 +0200 Message-ID: <4613531.FpoFIBnNDo@wuerfel> User-Agent: KMail/5.1.3 (Linux/4.4.0-34-generic; KDE/5.18.0; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20161024170642.GL25013@leon.nu> References: <20161024151658.2413803-1-arnd@arndb.de> <20161024170642.GL25013@leon.nu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:af0qQ4lXTG7jxSKD4GUAFXYvLgfQksMX9QvicrgusDjuhdybu2t xcfux8M/rsvRdC+Mz7Qx0NtRw4Uead0CLbJjODRfgDW/8TWwGe4/IaIx50fkzqsfs7lpDmn bVXBJCKRRbquRIkN1TWwsNo/tGosFIsbsomYx8KZ4OBabvvUw2LMYieT4SdEbCtYwqquqWw 3z9Sw4uYQ7O9/Nj6yF32A== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:rl+rB1IUvKY=:Id4pMkCZUEewHd9nmwFDZS +CWb9B4x4BRNV6DqG1d5L6BplSCzJm6LzBHVEC3xzeF7H4nKNezPlr6Plm61ilzXTZITtof5c ZPDCRKyVMMEP9c+g3ityfpMfe+yNZpObGUm7jmfUTQDaWRTmoKAn6TDqDrNxEGnCxN2eoMtIl KD0/djicfloZSIQQAzU2onBp9wQWIJD6ad1vhhQ/Ax2Wbrps8CC01n8s3KsBoBrleb2QP1epx o/d8M82h7u21uLEfI9rw3PBqYsRVyKGuW03xOfVsSexut4pcXTV5fGEztG5Cs2ccItDX0JhZf JyzxLT0VODyI593sBfbjN1+In/BkoYqVgnwI60uWkd/sl9XDkWamvPUDybAHvtGJ+QWWRIyD3 4LJrw4nwbT/hMxuGNKVTg9+UKosK+lPvc3TK6Q+CXRGFU2GsQze+7jhn7Zrzrr0WavkTXWP6N GebkGwaNHvGd3ESmiCURmn/NGfG6vHHU0V3r+CJ/WTdJdNX5pA6Q9pEn5L0+s1s9AEeWgmQPX 1heUmqyFvK6Agc3wsNMLV/LVm+kKUYe938eAElXRGzakfJj3pG3hN21ZY14Y15v/WTe4GXasS NxcA43d2bs3NozyXF/GPAgM7dCPvxVKzUB+QcsKH9pHqAwzMEWCQOhwit+zg2jreHGt5UkeOj /cxJlRiaY3bRnAIeRXHzhmdJn8rS2v7O8gehfUVanDlvHObxBOBc6pgdDtwPI87/yRSnPa0LK 8jle4uxQVnhWwAgZ Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday, October 24, 2016 8:06:42 PM CEST Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > Acked-by: Leon Romanovsky Thanks! > > drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------ > > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c > > index d4ad672b905b..88d8d292677b 100644 > > --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c > > @@ -815,29 +815,33 @@ static void prep_umr_unreg_wqe(struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev, > > umrwr->mkey = key; > > } > > > > -static struct ib_umem *mr_umem_get(struct ib_pd *pd, u64 start, u64 length, > > - int access_flags, int *npages, > > - int *page_shift, int *ncont, int *order) > > +static int mr_umem_get(struct ib_pd *pd, u64 start, u64 length, > > + int access_flags, struct ib_umem ** umem, > > I wonder if checkpatch does differentiate between "struct ib_umem ** umem" > and "struct ib_umem **umem". According to coding style, the second is preferable. It was unintended, I'll send a v2 patch in a minute. Arnd