lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: stm32-quadspi: avoid unintialized return code
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Ludovic BARRE <ludovic.barre@st.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 09/14/2017 05:24 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ludovic,
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Ludovic BARRE <ludovic.barre@st.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/14/2017 03:38 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>
>>> hi Arnd, Geert
>>>
>>> sorry, I was forgot this thread while my holidays
>>>
>>> Geert: what do you mean like "similar bugs in the future" in "If you
>>> initialized ret at the beginning, you lose the ability to catch newly
>>> introduced similar bugs in the future."
>>
>>
>> If you pre-initialize ret at the top, you loose the ability of the
>> compiler
>> to detect at compile-time if ret is never written to later. It will just
>> return
>> -EINVAL at runtime.
>>
>> With my version, if the code is modified later and another "return ret" is
>> added, the compiler will detect if there's a code path that forgets
>> to assign a value to ret.
>
> Ok, it's clear for me.
> I favor geert's solution.
> Arnd what do you think ?

I usually follow the same rule that Geert explained (and quote
https://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=232 when I do so). In this case, there
did not seem to be much value as the variable is not used
afterwards, and I kept the 'single return statement' guideline.

In the end, either version seems totally fine to me here, so
please use Geert's if you prefer that.

Arnd

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-14 23:39    [W:0.097 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site