[PATCH v2] clk: __clk_set_parent: set uninitialized variable

[mturquette@ti.com (Mike Turquette)]

On 20120703-12:50, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 04:29:10PM -0700, Turquette, Mike wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@ti.com> wrote:
> > > On Monday 02 July 2012 01:11 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> > >>
> > >> This patch fixes the following warning:
> > >>
> > >> ? ? ?drivers/clk/clk.c: In function '__clk_set_parent':
> > >> ? ? ?drivers/clk/clk.c:1083:5: warning: 'i' may be used uninitialized in
> > >> this function [-Wuninitialized]
> > >>
> > >> which has been introduced with commit:
> > >>
> > >> ? ? ?commit 7975059db572eb47f0fb272a62afeae272a4b209
> > >> ? ? ?Author: Rajendra Nayak<rnayak@ti.com>
> > >> ? ? ?Date: ? Wed Jun 6 14:41:31 2012 +0530
> > >>
> > >> ? ? ? ? ?clk: Allow late cache allocation for clk->parents
> > >>
> > >> This patch applies to linux-3.5-rc5
> > >>
> > >> Cc: Rajendra Nayak<rnayak@ti.com>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Marc Kleine-Budde<mkl@pengutronix.de>
> > >> ---
> > >> Hello,
> > >>
> > >> here an updated version. Changes since v1:
> > >> - Set i to clk->num_parents as Uwe pointed out.
> > >
> > >
> > > I started looking at how to avoid this initing
> > > of i to clk->parents (which is correct for the logic
> > > used below, but somehow seems error prone if someone
> > > happens to change the logic without noticing the init
> > > part)
> > > This is what I came up with, not tested at all, but
> > > worth considering if Mike dislikes the idea of initing
> > > i to clk->parents.
> > >
> > 
> > Hi Rajendra and Marc,
> > 
> > I prefer the code flow in Rajendra's change.  It seems more readable
> > and has a negative diffstat ;-)
> > 
> > $ git diff --stat
> >  drivers/clk/clk.c |   28 +++++++++++++---------------
> >  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Rajendra, can you test and send a proper patch for the same?  Thanks
> > Marc for sending your two previous patches.  I don't think that I will
> > Cc this one to stable since it falls under the category of
> > "theoretical but not yet observed" bugs.
> Maybe it's not observed yet only because
> 7975059db572eb47f0fb272a62afeae272a4b209 isn't deeply tested yet? Don't
> know, just a guess.
> 

Fair enough.  I Cc'd stable on that patch and copied you on the fixes
request to Linus for 3.5-rc6.

Thanks,
Mike

> Best regards
> Uwe
> 
> -- 
> Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-K?nig            |
> Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |