Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: stm32-quadspi: avoid unintialized return code | From | Ludovic BARRE <> | Date | Fri, 15 Sep 2017 09:59:05 +0200 |
| |
On 09/14/2017 11:38 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > 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.
thank Arnd for your answer, great link :-) we take geert's patch.
Geert: I will acked your patch.
thanks everybody > > Arnd >
| |