Re: [PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: stm32-quadspi: avoid unintialized return code

[Ludovic BARRE]

On 09/14/2017 11:38 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Ludovic BARRE <ludovic.barre@xxxxxx> 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@xxxxxx>
> > > 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