qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] gpio: Add GPIO Aggregator/Repeater driver


From: Geert Uytterhoeven
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] gpio: Add GPIO Aggregator/Repeater driver
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 15:33:34 +0100

Hi Eugeniu,

On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 3:15 PM Eugeniu Rosca <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 09:42:51AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > +static bool isrange(const char *s)
> > +{
> > +     size_t n = strlen(s);
>
> Cppcheck 1.40-18521-ge6d692d96058:
> drivers/gpio/gpio-aggregator.c:69:11: style: Variable 'n' is assigned a value 
> that is never used. [unreadVariable]
>
> Smatch v0.5.0-6150-gc1ed13e4ee7b:
> drivers/gpio/gpio-aggregator.c:69 isrange() warn: unused return: n = strlen()

Correct, this is a remainder of code present temporarily during development.
Will drop.

(where are the days gcc itself warned about that?)

> > +     aggr->lookups->dev_id = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%s.%d", DRV_NAME, id);
> > +     if (!aggr->lookups) {
> > +             res = -ENOMEM;
> > +             goto remove_idr;
> > +     }
>
> s/aggr->lookups/aggr->lookups->dev_id/ ?

Thanks, will fix.

> > +static int gpio_fwd_get_multiple(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned long 
> > *mask,
> > +                              unsigned long *bits)
> > +{
> > +     struct gpiochip_fwd *fwd = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
> > +     unsigned long *values, flags;
>
> gcc 9.2.1:
> warning: ‘flags’ may be used uninitialized in this function 
> [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>
> [..]
>
> > +static void gpio_fwd_set_multiple(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned long 
> > *mask,
> > +                               unsigned long *bits)
> > +{
> > +     struct gpiochip_fwd *fwd = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
> > +     unsigned long *values, flags;
>
> gcc 9.2.1, same as above:
> warning: ‘flags’ may be used uninitialized in this function 
> [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]

So newer gcc is (again) no longer smart enough to notice the check is
the same for initializer and user...

> Should these be silenced like in 2bf593f101f3ca ("xilinx_uartps.c:
> suppress "may be used uninitialised" warning") ?

TBH, I'm not a big fan of silencing false positives.
But if people like to see flags preinitialized to zero, that can be done...

> I plan to do some runtime testing soon.

Thanks, looking forward to the results!

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- address@hidden

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]