From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C209C4360F for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 07:08:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3980421855 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 07:08:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="key not found in DNS" (0-bit key) header.d=codeaurora.org header.i=@codeaurora.org header.b="dexuZiR6"; dkim=fail reason="key not found in DNS" (0-bit key) header.d=codeaurora.org header.i=@codeaurora.org header.b="TLnTRVlK" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730156AbfDEHIZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Apr 2019 03:08:25 -0400 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:46234 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726726AbfDEHIZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Apr 2019 03:08:25 -0400 Received: by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3A3C260AD1; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 07:08:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=codeaurora.org; s=default; t=1554448104; bh=9Q6Ci0zJvwTg8tN9SeM3mZCRvrTCgqYLofAnl/pEZ54=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=dexuZiR6D7e9tMktk2Y4PUhH7spkHrmObbPfkUWkBzYW2lhV9DsJ9GdpTTOYVW/6G NADybdBk7QsiWd1GRMWVc+o2LkRNX+ZZeBxx+4AFxpO4UNXYCmsw72z12/Ac1skmti ZeH6vw0BRsVdcnBOzroDelGlYeGmA7ZEJs+SNkbs= Received: from [10.204.79.83] (blr-c-bdr-fw-01_globalnat_allzones-outside.qualcomm.com [103.229.19.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mojha@smtp.codeaurora.org) by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CB0FC60A44; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 07:08:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=codeaurora.org; s=default; t=1554448103; bh=9Q6Ci0zJvwTg8tN9SeM3mZCRvrTCgqYLofAnl/pEZ54=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=TLnTRVlKy3iA2OJtNMbj1Ho/kH89lDEzTrxx3AOTFO0kYg2LFu2RPaTaJvGt2EuYc vsPOv1yNNlvje+VUoxr1h+0Y4iM6+9vqI+sm5cfR7CqhvAJulzftFkjjM4xt8EM0/5 7/xAz+JLaTQloehnHWWX2Xgg3zEaeY0l/z/zFynI= DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org CB0FC60A44 Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=mojha@codeaurora.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: silence an uninitialized variable warning To: Dan Carpenter Cc: Andy Gross , David Brown , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org References: <20190404084204.GA20193@kadam> <20190404093622.GM32613@kadam> From: Mukesh Ojha Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2019 12:38:19 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190404093622.GM32613@kadam> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 4/4/2019 3:06 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 02:47:39PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote: >> On 4/4/2019 2:12 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote: >>> Smatch complains that "ret" might be uninitialized. I can see why it >>> generates the warning, but I don't know if it's actually possible. >>> Anyway initializing "ret" here is harmless. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter >>> --- >>> drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c >>> index 1c488024c698..fc58d660692f 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c >>> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c >>> @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ static int __qcom_mdt_load(struct device *dev, const struct firmware *fw, >>> if (reloc_base) >>> *reloc_base = mem_reloc; >>> - >>> + ret = 0; >> >> You are overriding the value here, better keep it at the start. > I like how I wrote it. It makes it clear that this is the success path. But think about a case when this request_firmware_into_buf fails or the snippet above that can set the ret with error value right.. is not that possible?..and ret = 0 stops propagating the error properly. Thanks Mukesh > > regards, > dan carpenter >