On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 3:05 PM Eugenio Perez Martin
<epere...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 3:07 PM <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com>
> >
> > ../hw/virtio/vhost-shadow-virtqueue.c:545:13: error: ‘r’ may be used
> > uninitialized [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > hw/virtio/vhost-shadow-virtqueue.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost-shadow-virtqueue.c
> > b/hw/virtio/vhost-shadow-virtqueue.c
> > index fc5f408f77..cd29cc795b 100644
> > --- a/hw/virtio/vhost-shadow-virtqueue.c
> > +++ b/hw/virtio/vhost-shadow-virtqueue.c
> > @@ -526,7 +526,7 @@ static void vhost_svq_flush(VhostShadowVirtqueue *svq,
> > size_t vhost_svq_poll(VhostShadowVirtqueue *svq, size_t num)
> > {
> > size_t len = 0;
> > - uint32_t r;
> > + uint32_t r = 0;
> >
>
> I understand this is a bulk changeset to avoid the warning, but does
> this mean we cannot use pointer arguments to just return information
> anymore? vhost_svq_get_buf just write to it, it never reads it.
Sure we can, the problem here is that vhost_svq_get_buf() might return
without having written there (in the error path).
>
> If you post a second version and it is convenient for you, it would be
> useful to move it inside of the while.
I think it is the only way, if we keep it out we have the problem from
the second loop on (always in the error path).
>
> Any way we solve it,
>
> Acked-by: Eugenio Pérez <epere...@redhat.com>
>
> > while (num--) {
> > int64_t start_us = g_get_monotonic_time();
> > --
> > 2.45.2.827.g557ae147e6
> >
>
