From: David Brown <davidb@davidb.org>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Btrfs: silence a compiler warning
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:29:26 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120222162926.GA25392@davidb.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120222073055.GB7389@elgon.mountain>
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@oracle.com>
>
>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.
David
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Brown <davidb@davidb.org>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Btrfs: silence a compiler warning
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:29:26 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120222162926.GA25392@davidb.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120222073055.GB7389@elgon.mountain>
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@oracle.com>
>
>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.
David
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-22 16:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-22 7:30 [patch] Btrfs: silence a compiler warning Dan Carpenter
2012-02-22 7:30 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-02-22 16:29 ` David Brown [this message]
2012-02-22 16:29 ` David Brown
2012-02-22 16:37 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-02-22 16:37 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-02-22 19:41 ` [patch v2] " Dan Carpenter
2012-02-22 19:41 ` Dan Carpenter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120222162926.GA25392@davidb.org \
--to=davidb@davidb.org \
--cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.