lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] clk: pxa: fix pxa2xx_determine_rate return
Date
On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 7:01:57 PM CET Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> writes:
>
> > The new pxa2xx_determine_rate() function seems lacking in a few
> > regards:
> >
> > - For an exact match or no match at all, the rate is uninitialized
> > as reported by gcc -Wmaybe-unintialized:
> > drivers/clk/pxa/clk-pxa.c: In function 'pxa2xx_determine_rate':
> > drivers/clk/pxa/clk-pxa.c:243:5: error: 'rate' may be used uninitialized in
> > this function
> Euh I don't think that is true.
>
> For an exact match, rate is assigned the exact value in the first line after the
> for(xxx).

Right, my mistake.

> For no match at all, there are 2 cases :
> - either a closest match is found, and rate is actually assigned (see below)
> - or no match is found, and it's true rate remains uninitialized, but we have
> ret = -EINVAL

Or a third case that gcc finds but that probably won't happen in practice:

- nb_freqs==0, rate is never initialized

This is what I'm addressing by returning early in the 'else' case.

> > - If we get a non-exact match, the req->rate output is never set
> > to the actual rate but remains at the requested rate.
> Euh no, that doesn't seem correct to me.
>
> If a non-exact match is found, either by closest_below or closest_above, rate is
> set (rate = freqs[closest_xxx].cpll). And a couple of lines later after the
> if/else, req->rate = rate is set as well, so I don't think this part of the
> commit message is accurate.

It is only set if rate is zero, and that normally is not the case here:

if (!rate)
req->rate = rate;


> > - We should not attempt to print a rate if none could be found
> True.
>
> > This rewrites the logic accordingly.
> Unless I'm wrong in the analysis above, I'd rather have just "unsigned long rate
> = 0" in the variable declaration, and keep the pr_debug() even if -EINVAL is
> returned (it's better for bug tracking, with a rate == 0 in this case for example).

I think it's safer not to initialize the variable, to ensure we get a
warning if the function is changed incorrectly again later.

Arnd

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-11-08 23:23    [W:0.640 / U:0.708 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site