Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1507333 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-24 17:50 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-10-25 22:30 +0200 |
| Articles | 4 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
[PATCH] cw1200: fix bogus maybe-uninitialized warning Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2016-10-24 17:50 +0200
RE: [PATCH] cw1200: fix bogus maybe-uninitialized warning David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM> - 2016-10-25 15:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] cw1200: fix bogus maybe-uninitialized warning Solomon Peachy <pizza@shaftnet.org> - 2016-10-25 20:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] cw1200: fix bogus maybe-uninitialized warning Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2016-10-25 22:30 +0200
| From | Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 17:50 +0200 |
| Subject | [PATCH] cw1200: fix bogus maybe-uninitialized warning |
| Message-ID | <svPFE-17R-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On x86, the cw1200 driver produces a rather silly warning about the
possible use of the 'ret' variable without an initialization
presumably after being confused by the architecture specific definition
of WARN_ON:
drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/wsm.c: In function ‘wsm_handle_rx’:
drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/wsm.c:1457:9: error: ‘ret’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
As the driver just checks the same variable twice here, we can simplify
it by removing the second condition, which makes it more readable and
avoids the warning.
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
---
drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/wsm.c | 15 +++++++--------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/wsm.c b/drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/wsm.c
index 680d60eabc75..094e6637ade2 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/wsm.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/wsm.c
@@ -385,14 +385,13 @@ static int wsm_multi_tx_confirm(struct cw1200_common *priv,
if (WARN_ON(count <= 0))
return -EINVAL;
- if (count > 1) {
- /* We already released one buffer, now for the rest */
- ret = wsm_release_tx_buffer(priv, count - 1);
- if (ret < 0)
- return ret;
- else if (ret > 0)
- cw1200_bh_wakeup(priv);
- }
+ /* We already released one buffer, now for the rest */
+ ret = wsm_release_tx_buffer(priv, count - 1);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ return ret;
+
+ if (ret > 0)
+ cw1200_bh_wakeup(priv);
cw1200_debug_txed_multi(priv, count);
for (i = 0; i < count; ++i) {
--
2.9.0
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 15:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sw9XI-6bh-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1507333 |
From: Of Arnd Bergmann
> Sent: 24 October 2016 16:42
> On x86, the cw1200 driver produces a rather silly warning about the
> possible use of the 'ret' variable without an initialization
> presumably after being confused by the architecture specific definition
> of WARN_ON:
>
> drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/wsm.c: In function wsm_handle_rx:
> drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/wsm.c:1457:9: error: ret may be used uninitialized in this function [-
> Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
>
> As the driver just checks the same variable twice here, we can simplify
> it by removing the second condition, which makes it more readable and
> avoids the warning.
>
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> ---
> drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/wsm.c | 15 +++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/wsm.c b/drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/wsm.c
> index 680d60eabc75..094e6637ade2 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/wsm.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/wsm.c
> @@ -385,14 +385,13 @@ static int wsm_multi_tx_confirm(struct cw1200_common *priv,
> if (WARN_ON(count <= 0))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - if (count > 1) {
> - /* We already released one buffer, now for the rest */
> - ret = wsm_release_tx_buffer(priv, count - 1);
> - if (ret < 0)
> - return ret;
> - else if (ret > 0)
> - cw1200_bh_wakeup(priv);
> - }
> + /* We already released one buffer, now for the rest */
> + ret = wsm_release_tx_buffer(priv, count - 1);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + if (ret > 0)
> + cw1200_bh_wakeup(priv);
That doesn't look equivalent to me (when count == 1).
>
> cw1200_debug_txed_multi(priv, count);
> for (i = 0; i < count; ++i) {
Convert this loop into a do ... while so the body executes at least once.
David
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solomon Peachy <pizza@shaftnet.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 20:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sweNI-Sp-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1508295 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:24:55PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > - if (count > 1) {
> > - /* We already released one buffer, now for the rest */
> > - ret = wsm_release_tx_buffer(priv, count - 1);
> > - if (ret < 0)
> > - return ret;
> > - else if (ret > 0)
> > - cw1200_bh_wakeup(priv);
> > - }
> > + /* We already released one buffer, now for the rest */
> > + ret = wsm_release_tx_buffer(priv, count - 1);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + if (ret > 0)
> > + cw1200_bh_wakeup(priv);
>
> That doesn't look equivalent to me (when count == 1).
I concur, this patch should not be applied in its current form.
- Solomon
--
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
Delray Beach, FL ^^ (email/xmpp) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 22:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <swgw9-22A-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1508295 |
On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 1:24:55 PM CEST David Laight wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/wsm.c b/drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/wsm.c
> > index 680d60eabc75..094e6637ade2 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/wsm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/wsm.c
> > @@ -385,14 +385,13 @@ static int wsm_multi_tx_confirm(struct cw1200_common *priv,
> > if (WARN_ON(count <= 0))
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > - if (count > 1) {
> > - /* We already released one buffer, now for the rest */
> > - ret = wsm_release_tx_buffer(priv, count - 1);
> > - if (ret < 0)
> > - return ret;
> > - else if (ret > 0)
> > - cw1200_bh_wakeup(priv);
> > - }
> > + /* We already released one buffer, now for the rest */
> > + ret = wsm_release_tx_buffer(priv, count - 1);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + if (ret > 0)
> > + cw1200_bh_wakeup(priv);
>
> That doesn't look equivalent to me (when count == 1).
Ah, that's what I missed, thanks for pointing that out!
> >
> > cw1200_debug_txed_multi(priv, count);
> > for (i = 0; i < count; ++i) {
>
> Convert this loop into a do ... while so the body executes at least once.
Good idea. Version 2 coming now.
Arnd
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web