From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from avon.wwwdotorg.org ([70.85.31.133]:44403 "EHLO avon.wwwdotorg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754501Ab3AaWVT (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:21:19 -0500 Message-ID: <510AEE5C.6030303@wwwdotorg.org> (sfid-20130131_232124_480318_38EDD7DE) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:21:16 -0700 From: Stephen Warren MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Johannes Berg CC: "John W. Linville" , "David S. Miller" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH] nl80211: avoid "wdev_id may be used uninitialized" References: <1359504662-23561-1-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> (sfid-20130130_011118_335925_03B80596) <1359532679.8010.1.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <51094F10.60605@wwwdotorg.org> <1359665497.8415.102.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> In-Reply-To: <1359665497.8415.102.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/31/2013 01:51 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2013-01-30 at 09:49 -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 01/30/2013 12:57 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: >>> On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 17:11 -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: >>>> From: Stephen Warren >>>> >>>> Silence the following: >>>> net/wireless/nl80211.c: In function '__cfg80211_wdev_from_attrs.clone.119': >>>> net/wireless/nl80211.c:57:6: warning: 'wdev_id' may be used uninitialized in this function >>>> >>>> ... by always initializing wdev_id to zero. I assume that wiphy_idx and >>>> ifidx are set to -1 for similar reasons, so this change simply propagates >>>> the same workaround. >>>> >>>> In practice, this warning is false, since wdev_id is both set and used >>>> under the condition if (have_wdev_id). However, at least my compiler >>>> can't be coerced into realizing this; almost any code between the if >>>> blocks that set and use the variable causes this warning. >>> >>> I don't see this warning? What compiler are you using? >> >> I'm using gcc-4.5.3 for ARM. I checked with gcc-4.6.3 and gcc-4.7.2 and >> indeed I don't see the warning there. > > Interesting. So should I keep it or remove it? I guess in this > particular instance it doesn't matter all that much. In other cases I'd > be more against changing it I guess. It's your call. I guess since it's fixed going forward in gcc, you may as well drop it though.