[PATCH] brcmsmac: initialize morepending in brcms_b_recv()

drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmsmac/main.c: In function ‘brcms_b_recv’:
drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmsmac/main.c:7636: warning: ‘morepending’ may be used uninitialized in this function

Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
---
 drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmsmac/main.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmsmac/main.c b/drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmsmac/main.c
index 17594de..5f0f444 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmsmac/main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmsmac/main.c

@@ -7633,7 +7633,7 @@ brcms_b_recv(struct brcms_hardware *wlc_hw, uint fifo, bool bound)
 
 	uint n = 0;
 	uint bound_limit = bound ? RXBND : -1;
-	bool morepending;
+	bool morepending = false;
 
 	skb_queue_head_init(&recv_frames);
 

-- 
1.7.0.4

On 12/22/2012 10:07 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmsmac/main.c: In function ‘brcms_b_recv’:
drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmsmac/main.c:7636: warning: ‘morepending’ may be used uninitialized in this function

Reading the code this warning seems to be invalid except when RXBND is
defined as zero, which would make the whole function totally bogus.
Would be good to have a WARN_ON(!RXBND) in brcms_b_attach().

I don't like pleasing a compiler with unnecessary initializers but I am
also for builds with zero warnings. So...

Acked-by: Arend van Spriel <arend-dY08KVG/lbpWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Arend van Spriel [off-list ref] wrote:

On 12/22/2012 10:07 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

quoted

drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmsmac/main.c: In function ‘brcms_b_recv’:
drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmsmac/main.c:7636: warning: ‘morepending’ may be used uninitialized in this function

Reading the code this warning seems to be invalid except when RXBND is
defined as zero, which would make the whole function totally bogus.
Would be good to have a WARN_ON(!RXBND) in brcms_b_attach().

I thought about the bound = false case immediately ending the loop.
But on closer look, it seems I missed that n and bound_limit are uint, not int.
So it's indeed unlikely to happen.

I don't like pleasing a compiler with unnecessary initializers but I am
also for builds with zero warnings. So...

Acked-by: Arend van Spriel <redacted>

quoted

Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
---
 drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmsmac/main.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmsmac/main.c b/drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmsmac/main.c
index 17594de..5f0f444 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmsmac/main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211/brcmsmac/main.c

@@ -7633,7 +7633,7 @@ brcms_b_recv(struct brcms_hardware *wlc_hw, uint fifo, bool bound)

      uint n = 0;
      uint bound_limit = bound ? RXBND : -1;
-     bool morepending;
+     bool morepending = false;

      skb_queue_head_init(&recv_frames);

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

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