On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Richard Leitner <d...@g0hl1n.net> wrote: > On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 13:42:47 +0100 > Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote: > >> On Monday 08 December 2014 13:27:20 Richard Leitner wrote: >> > >> > As far as I can tell 'start' cannot really be used uninitialized >> > here, but for the sanity of gcc output explicitly initialize it. >> > Same goes for the 'end' variable. >> >> Prabhakar Lad also sent a patch for this already, which was lacking >> a good patch description. Your patch does this slightly better but >> still fails to explain how you concluded it was safe and you don't >> really explain why you initialize the 'end' variable that we don't >> even get a warning about. > > Oops, I'm sorry, I haven't seen the patch and the answers to it. > > According to the comments by Andrew a simplification of this code > section would be nice. I think it should be possible to do this in a > way that the initialize-to-zero won't be needed anymore. > > Prabhakar Lad, are you working on this already? > If not I'll take a look at it. > Definitely you can go ahead, I am busy with other stuff.
Thanks, --Prabhakar Lad -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
