Can I submit simple patches like this to the primary ML?

[Vinícius Tinti]

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Greg KH <greg at kroah.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 01:48:43AM -0200, Vinícius Tinti wrote:
>> This is a simple patch that initializes a function with NULL to avoid some
>> compiler warnings. In such cases should I proceed as a normal patch or it is
>> better to send to another ML like to one for trivial patches?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tinti
>
>> >From a391789bf44afbdbe2a7b3c76301b5ece9f72475 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: =?UTF-8?q?Vin=C3=ADcius=20Tinti?= <viniciustinti at gmail.com>
>> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 01:35:34 -0200
>> Subject: [PATCH] x86: LLVMLinux: Fix uninitialized function do_reloc
>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>>
>> Explicit initializes do_reloc function with NULL. Later the function is
>> either proper initialized of an error issued.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vinícius Tinti <viniciustinti at gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/tools/relocs.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/tools/relocs.c b/arch/x86/tools/relocs.c
>> index 0c2fae8..1d533f1 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/tools/relocs.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/tools/relocs.c
>> @@ -971,7 +971,7 @@ static void emit_relocs(int as_text, int use_real_mode)
>>       int i;
>>       int (*write_reloc)(uint32_t, FILE *) = write32;
>>       int (*do_reloc)(struct section *sec, Elf_Rel *rel, Elf_Sym *sym,
>> -                     const char *symname);
>> +                     const char *symname) = NULL;
>
> I think you need to get an updated version of the compiler as this patch
> should not be needed at all.  It doesn't cause a warning here for me
> without it.

In fact it causes a warning on Clang which complains that:

   arch/x86/tools/relocs.c:977:6: warning: variable 'do_reloc' is used
uninitialized whenever 'if' condition is false
[-Wsometimes-uninitialized]

I think there is not a problem on the current code but to avoid
further problems I believe it is worth to initialize this function
with NULL.
What do you think?

> thanks,
>
> greg k-h



-- 
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication