On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 08:29:26AM -0800, David Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:30:55AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >Gcc warns that "ret" can be used uninitialized. It can't actually be
> >used uninitialized because btrfs_num_copies() always returns 1 or more.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >diff --git a/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c b/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
> >index 064b29b..c053e90 100644
> >--- a/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
> >+++ b/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
> >@@ -643,7 +643,7 @@ static struct btrfsic_dev_state *btrfsic_dev_state_hashtable_lookup(
> >static int btrfsic_process_superblock(struct btrfsic_state *state,
> > struct btrfs_fs_devices *fs_devices)
> >{
> >- int ret;
> >+ int ret = 0;
>
> Does
>
> int uninitialized_var(ret);
>
> work? The assignment to zero actually generates additional
> (unnecessary) code.
Sure. I can resend it.
regards,
dan carpenter
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
