From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755548AbcBBUBS (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Feb 2016 15:01:18 -0500 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:59478 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751837AbcBBUBR (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Feb 2016 15:01:17 -0500 From: Arnd Bergmann To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: Stephen Boyd , Michael Turquette , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Roman Volkov , Tony Prisk , Andrzej Hajda , linux-clk@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: vt8500: don't return possibly uninitialized data Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 21:00:29 +0100 Message-ID: <2326140.nrZ9Ej2PSt@wuerfel> User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.16.0-10-generic; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20160202194713.GN4848@codeaurora.org> References: <4790407.6zgSQCdsSB@wuerfel> <2210116.QsPesySkh0@wuerfel> <20160202194713.GN4848@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:FPwS6Q4V66cauFMltJ+sSeeqplVKuBqx3GNHGJVdbUtemfW2jUV QHkaCPNz9d+GzUBzfPHmu4VX3HR+c3KRj4sAwngttUba0bAe77B0/3+ftnyE1KbptSI/DgK aOlW6V9jxXh4phY9E/Q+pxs8vqvbEcoKNRNHIQPQNFSeyIzGFIDYj2PhhPek+ikxP7f8Y71 Vbssmk/MUdoH667AKTmIQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:jGCpMpjiIBg=:Jji/0nlcWs3bPS+RFHo/WA 3QFeb38i2uxhKtk6c58dCi2Grj8nJARa5JTMaOWCey9g83Apz6PwV2hd2vzMl/UNkQc1RlRyy jRCabZjYt/uEEuo5kO0G/hTGwF6/HZXm/i6AoCO9OVrzGKdFZuPfNRoDbNisHEKqBFcuqr8Ip uiAREd2e1fxD16YE8z4LIANQ3IcD9UEqT0SCoqPW7b7rCvBfI4nvweEQmqwOqE5FTmLgG1nPh AjNM5esTj6BQGRTjhKGPUwyb+AzbH1DxiB8CnfB0/1M6OHORSwsoYssbpptHy9LRZCkacxbGS pfbHRli6qi6JwuUTSYor7rfJExNVaoaTE/Ko8Xxud2Af/+slRSCm8khb32uhOxNg+PKpOA99y W3Ka5Lttch/jIDIbGn+efKke6xwydAxJ1br6uJsgF1rgsHJMH14uJEgTgFdfVwHqCzDZT2kdL aun2QOSyIA+Trj4SsRMkouRQvHtKJfm6LwqNIRnnqlX+f9FyVqmj6aJ4l4lyaj8bA3ziqcnWl uJI8vNGWkmoyMkXcp+it4/bg80yQn/wPESemuR2/x9rbXGUHY807P8renvjsiMIvLh3NnqJpV WV+0J1Pi3MxR6wpVrO9Mq45JkJy+0pQXNykZD6wxJWGAmXFhM2jI8Czvi/xchVmjuWVq3/eER udjDIoA6IyFRH74VeWQS3uk/Kot7zC4Nmco4CpDBLrc6v9HJ+CZg5igIRtNggX88M/miLvQtd GaM8I7aVV77Oi2Pf Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 02 February 2016 11:47:13 Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 02/02, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Monday 01 February 2016 17:15:45 Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > I see what you mean now. I checked different gcc versions, and with my patch I get > > the warnings for 4.6 through 4.9, but not for 5.x. > > > > In general, I tried to only address warnings I still see with newer gcc version, > > as they are better about false positives. Do you think it's ok to take the > > patch as is then? Otherwise we probably have to add fake initializations which > > would shut up the warnings but not help with the code quality. > > > > Sure. I was hoping something could be done to restructure the > code to make it easier for the compiler to figure out the > variables would be initialized. But you're the one who's sending > the patch to silence them so if you're satisfied I'm not going to > spend too much time on this. > Ok, thanks! Note that this one patch was for a real bug involving undefined behavior that is now fixed. Arnd