On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 14:22:12 +0300 Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Smatch complains that "ret" might be uninitialized if we don't enter
> the loop. We do always enter the loop so it's a false positive, but
> it's cleaner to just return a literal zero and that silences the
> warning as well.
>
>
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 11:18:16AM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> On 2020/10/23 19:22, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > Smatch complains that "ret" might be uninitialized if we don't enter
> > the loop. We do always enter the loop so it's a false positive, but
> > it's cleaner to just return a literal zero
On 2020/10/23 19:22, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Smatch complains that "ret" might be uninitialized if we don't enter
> the loop. We do always enter the loop so it's a false positive, but
> it's cleaner to just return a literal zero and that silences the
> warning as well.
Thanks for the clean up.
Smatch complains that "ret" might be uninitialized if we don't enter
the loop. We do always enter the loop so it's a false positive, but
it's cleaner to just return a literal zero and that silences the
warning as well.
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter
---
4 matches
Mail list logo