[PATCH 00/28] Reenable maybe-uninitialized warnings

[PATCH 00/28] Reenable maybe-uninitialized warnings

[Arnd Bergmann]

This is a set of patches that I hope to get into v4.9 in some form
in order to turn on the -Wmaybe-uninitialized warnings again.

After talking to Linus in person at Linaro Connect about this, I
spent some time on finding all the remaining warnings, and this
is the resulting patch series. More details are in the description
of the last patch that actually enables the warning.

Let me know if there are other warnings that I missed, and whether
you think these are still appropriate for v4.9 or not.
A couple of patches are non-obvious, and could use some more
detailed review.

	Arnd

Arnd Bergmann (28):
  [v2] netfilter: nf_tables: avoid uninitialized variable warning
  [v2] mtd: mtk: avoid warning in mtk_ecc_encode
  [v2] infiniband: shut up a maybe-uninitialized warning
  f2fs: replace a build-time warning with runtime WARN_ON
  ext2: avoid bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning
  NFSv4.1: work around -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning
  ceph: avoid false positive maybe-uninitialized warning
  staging: lustre: restore initialization of return code
  staging: lustre: remove broken dead code in
    cfs_cpt_table_create_pattern
  UBI: fix uninitialized access of vid_hdr pointer
  block: rdb: false-postive gcc-4.9 -Wmaybe-uninitialized
  [media] rc: print correct variable for z8f0811
  [media] dib0700: fix uninitialized data on 'repeat' event
  iio: accel: sca3000_core: avoid potentially uninitialized variable
  crypto: aesni: avoid -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning
  pcmcia: fix return value of soc_pcmcia_regulator_set
  spi: fsl-espi: avoid processing uninitalized data on error
  drm: avoid uninitialized timestamp use in wait_vblank
  brcmfmac: avoid maybe-uninitialized warning in brcmf_cfg80211_start_ap
  net: bcm63xx: avoid referencing uninitialized variable
  net/hyperv: avoid uninitialized variable
  x86: apm: avoid uninitialized data
  x86: mark target address as output in 'insb' asm
  x86: math-emu: possible uninitialized variable use
  s390: pci: don't print uninitialized data for debugging
  nios2: fix timer initcall return value
  rocker: fix maybe-uninitialized warning
  Kbuild: bring back -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning

 Makefile                                           |  10 +-
 arch/arc/Makefile                                  |   4 +-
 arch/nios2/kernel/time.c                           |   1 +
 arch/s390/pci/pci_dma.c                            |   2 +-
 arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_glue.c                 | 121 +++++++++++++--------
 arch/x86/include/asm/io.h                          |   4 +-
 arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c                           |   5 +-
 arch/x86/math-emu/Makefile                         |   4 +-
 arch/x86/math-emu/reg_compare.c                    |  16 +--
 drivers/block/rbd.c                                |   1 +
 drivers/gpu/drm/drm_irq.c                          |   4 +-
 drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c                      |  56 +++++-----
 drivers/media/i2c/ir-kbd-i2c.c                     |   2 +-
 drivers/media/usb/dvb-usb/dib0700_core.c           |  10 +-
 drivers/mtd/nand/mtk_ecc.c                         |  19 ++--
 drivers/mtd/ubi/eba.c                              |   2 +-
 drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bcm63xx_enet.c       |   3 +-
 drivers/net/ethernet/rocker/rocker_ofdpa.c         |   4 +-
 drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc_drv.c                    |   2 +-
 .../broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c         |   2 +-
 drivers/pcmcia/soc_common.c                        |   2 +-
 drivers/spi/spi-fsl-espi.c                         |   2 +-
 drivers/staging/iio/accel/sca3000_core.c           |   2 +
 .../staging/lustre/lnet/libcfs/linux/linux-cpu.c   |   7 --
 drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_pack.c       |   2 +
 fs/ceph/super.c                                    |   3 +-
 fs/ext2/inode.c                                    |   7 +-
 fs/f2fs/data.c                                     |   7 ++
 fs/nfs/nfs4session.c                               |  10 +-
 net/netfilter/nft_range.c                          |  10 +-
 scripts/Makefile.ubsan                             |   4 +
 31 files changed, 187 insertions(+), 141 deletions(-)

-- 
Cc: x86@kernel.org
Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>
Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org
2.9.0

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

[PATCH 04/28] f2fs: replace a build-time warning with runtime WARN_ON

[Arnd Bergmann]

gcc is unsure about the use of last_ofs_in_node, which might happen
without a prior initialization:

fs/f2fs//git/arm-soc/fs/f2fs/data.c: In function ‘f2fs_map_blocks’:
fs/f2fs/data.c:799:54: warning: ‘last_ofs_in_node’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
   if (prealloc && dn.ofs_in_node != last_ofs_in_node + 1) {

I'm not sure about it either, so to shut up the warning I initialize
it to a known invalid -1u and later check for this, so we get a
runtime warning if we ever hit the uninitialized case.

It would be much better to reorganize the code in some form that
made it obvious to both the compiler and the reader that this
variable use it ok.

Since I only see the warning with gcc-4.9 but not any later version,
it's possible that the compiler is actually smarter than I am here
and has learned to see the code as correct, in which case this
patch could just be disregarded. It would certainly be helpful
to get an opinion from the maintainers on the matter.

Fixes: 46008c6d4232 ("f2fs: support in batch multi blocks preallocation")
Cc: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
Cc: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
---
 fs/f2fs/data.c | 7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
index 9ae194f..1b17de2 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
@@ -696,6 +696,12 @@ int f2fs_map_blocks(struct inode *inode, struct f2fs_map_blocks *map,
 		goto out;
 	}
 
+	/*
+	 * FIXME: without this, we get "warning: ‘last_ofs_in_node’ may be
+	 * used uninitialized". It's not clear whether that can actually
+	 * happen, so there is now a WARN_ON() checking for this.
+	 */
+	last_ofs_in_node = -1u;
 next_dnode:
 	if (create)
 		f2fs_lock_op(sbi);
@@ -796,6 +802,7 @@ int f2fs_map_blocks(struct inode *inode, struct f2fs_map_blocks *map,
 		allocated = dn.node_changed;
 
 		map->m_len += dn.ofs_in_node - ofs_in_node;
+		WARN_ON(last_ofs_in_node == -1u);
 		if (prealloc && dn.ofs_in_node != last_ofs_in_node + 1) {
 			err = -ENOSPC;
 			goto sync_out;
-- 
2.9.0


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most 
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel

[PATCH 28/28] Kbuild: bring back -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning

[Arnd Bergmann]

Traditionally, we have always had warnings about uninitialized variables
enabled, as this is part of -Wall, and generally a good idea [1], but it
also always produced false positives, mainly because this is a variation
of the halting problem and provably impossible to get right in all cases
[2].

Various people have identified cases that are particularly bad for false
positives, and in commit e74fc973b6e5 ("Turn off -Wmaybe-uninitialized
when building with -Os"), I turned off the warning for any build that
was done with CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE.  This drastically reduced the number
of false positive warnings in the default build but unfortunately had
the side effect of turning the warning off completely in 'allmodconfig'
builds, which in turn led to a lot of warnings (both actual bugs, and
remaining false positives) to go in unnoticed.

With commit 877417e6ffb9 ("Kbuild: change CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE
definition") enabled the warning again for allmodconfig builds in v4.7
and in v4.8-rc1, I had finally managed to address all warnings I get in
an ARM allmodconfig build and most other maybe-uninitialized warnings
for ARM randconfig builds.

However, commit 6e8d666e9253 ("Disable "maybe-uninitialized" warning
globally") was merged at the same time and disabled it completely for
all configurations, because of false-positive warnings on x86 that
I had not addressed until then. This caused a lot of actual bugs to
get merged into mainline, and I sent several dozen patches for these
during the v4.9 development cycle. Most of these are actual bugs,
some are for correct code that is safe because it is only called
under external constraints that make it impossible to run into
the case that gcc sees, and in a few cases gcc is just stupid and
finds something that can obviously never happen.

I have now done a few thousand randconfig builds on x86 and collected
all patches that I needed to address every single warning I got
(I can provide the combined patch for the other warnings if anyone
is interested), so I hope we can get the warning back and let people
catch the actual bugs earlier.

Note that the majority of the patches I created are for the third kind
of problem (stupid false-positives), for one of two reasons:
- some of them only get triggered in certain combinations of config
  options, so we don't always run into them, and
- the actual bugs tend to get addressed much quicker as they also
  lead to incorrect runtime behavior.

These 27 patches address the warnings that either occur in one of the more
common configurations (defconfig, allmodconfig, or something built by the
kbuild robot or kernelci.org), or they are about a real bug. It would be
good to get these all into v4.9 if we want to turn on the warning again.
I have tested these extensively with gcc-4.9 and gcc-6 and done a bit
of testing with gcc-5, and all of these should now be fine. gcc-4.8
is much worse about the false-positive warnings and is also fairly old
now, so I'm leaving the warning disabled with that version. gcc-4.7 and
older don't understand the -Wno-maybe-uninitialized option and are not
affected by this patch either way.

I have another (smaller) series of patches for warnings that are both
harmless and not as easy to trigger, and I will send them for inclusion
in v4.10.

Link: https://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=232 [1]
Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Better_Uninitialized_Warnings [2]
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
---
 Makefile               | 10 ++++++----
 arch/arc/Makefile      |  4 +++-
 scripts/Makefile.ubsan |  4 ++++
 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Cc: x86@kernel.org
Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>
Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org

diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 512e47a..43cd3d9 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -370,7 +370,7 @@ LDFLAGS_MODULE  =
 CFLAGS_KERNEL	=
 AFLAGS_KERNEL	=
 LDFLAGS_vmlinux =
-CFLAGS_GCOV	= -fprofile-arcs -ftest-coverage -fno-tree-loop-im
+CFLAGS_GCOV	= -fprofile-arcs -ftest-coverage -fno-tree-loop-im  -Wno-maybe-uninitialized
 CFLAGS_KCOV	:= $(call cc-option,-fsanitize-coverage=trace-pc,)
 
 
@@ -620,7 +620,6 @@ ARCH_CFLAGS :=
 include arch/$(SRCARCH)/Makefile
 
 KBUILD_CFLAGS	+= $(call cc-option,-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks,)
-KBUILD_CFLAGS	+= $(call cc-disable-warning,maybe-uninitialized,)
 KBUILD_CFLAGS	+= $(call cc-disable-warning,frame-address,)
 
 ifdef CONFIG_LD_DEAD_CODE_DATA_ELIMINATION
@@ -629,15 +628,18 @@ KBUILD_CFLAGS	+= $(call cc-option,-fdata-sections,)
 endif
 
 ifdef CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE
-KBUILD_CFLAGS	+= -Os
+KBUILD_CFLAGS	+= -Os $(call cc-disable-warning,maybe-uninitialized,)
 else
 ifdef CONFIG_PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES
-KBUILD_CFLAGS	+= -O2
+KBUILD_CFLAGS	+= -O2 $(call cc-disable-warning,maybe-uninitialized,)
 else
 KBUILD_CFLAGS   += -O2
 endif
 endif
 
+KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-ifversion, -lt, 0409, \
+			$(call cc-disable-warning,maybe-uninitialized,))
+
 # Tell gcc to never replace conditional load with a non-conditional one
 KBUILD_CFLAGS	+= $(call cc-option,--param=allow-store-data-races=0)
 
diff --git a/arch/arc/Makefile b/arch/arc/Makefile
index aa82d13..19cce22 100644
--- a/arch/arc/Makefile
+++ b/arch/arc/Makefile
@@ -71,7 +71,9 @@ cflags-$(CONFIG_ARC_DW2_UNWIND)		+= -fasynchronous-unwind-tables $(cfi)
 ifndef CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE
 # Generic build system uses -O2, we want -O3
 # Note: No need to add to cflags-y as that happens anyways
-ARCH_CFLAGS += -O3
+#
+# Disable the false maybe-uninitialized warings gcc spits out at -O3
+ARCH_CFLAGS += -O3 $(call cc-disable-warning,maybe-uninitialized,)
 endif
 
 # small data is default for elf32 tool-chain. If not usable, disable it
diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.ubsan b/scripts/Makefile.ubsan
index dd779c4..3b1b138 100644
--- a/scripts/Makefile.ubsan
+++ b/scripts/Makefile.ubsan
@@ -17,4 +17,8 @@ endif
 ifdef CONFIG_UBSAN_NULL
       CFLAGS_UBSAN += $(call cc-option, -fsanitize=null)
 endif
+
+      # -fsanitize=* options makes GCC less smart than usual and
+      # increase number of 'maybe-uninitialized false-positives
+      CFLAGS_UBSAN += $(call cc-option, -Wno-maybe-uninitialized)
 endif
-- 
2.9.0

Re: [PATCH 00/28] Reenable maybe-uninitialized warnings

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:03:28AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> This is a set of patches that I hope to get into v4.9 in some form
> in order to turn on the -Wmaybe-uninitialized warnings again.

Hi Arnd,

I jsut complained to Geert that I was introducing way to many
bugs or pointless warnings for some compilers lately, but gcc didn't
warn me about them.  From a little research the lack of
-Wmaybe-uninitialized seems to be the reason for it, so I'm all
for re-enabling it.

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 04/28] f2fs: replace a build-time warning with runtime WARN_ON

[Chao Yu]

Hi Arnd,

On 2016/10/18 6:05, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> gcc is unsure about the use of last_ofs_in_node, which might happen
> without a prior initialization:
> 
> fs/f2fs//git/arm-soc/fs/f2fs/data.c: In function ‘f2fs_map_blocks’:
> fs/f2fs/data.c:799:54: warning: ‘last_ofs_in_node’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>    if (prealloc && dn.ofs_in_node != last_ofs_in_node + 1) {

In each round of dnode block traverse, we will init 'prealloc' and then update
'prealloc' and 'last_ofs_in_node' together in below lines of f2fs_map_blocks:
			if (flag == F2FS_GET_BLOCK_PRE_AIO) {
				if (blkaddr == NULL_ADDR) {
					prealloc++;
					last_ofs_in_node = dn.ofs_in_node;
				}
			}

Then in below codes, it is safe to use 'last_ofs_in_node' since we will check
'prealloc' firstly, so if 'prealloc' is non-zero, 'last_ofs_in_node' must be valid.
	if (prealloc && dn.ofs_in_node != last_ofs_in_node + 1) {

So I think we should not add WARN_ON there.

Thanks,

> 
> I'm not sure about it either, so to shut up the warning I initialize
> it to a known invalid -1u and later check for this, so we get a
> runtime warning if we ever hit the uninitialized case.
> 
> It would be much better to reorganize the code in some form that
> made it obvious to both the compiler and the reader that this
> variable use it ok.
> 
> Since I only see the warning with gcc-4.9 but not any later version,
> it's possible that the compiler is actually smarter than I am here
> and has learned to see the code as correct, in which case this
> patch could just be disregarded. It would certainly be helpful
> to get an opinion from the maintainers on the matter.
> 
> Fixes: 46008c6d4232 ("f2fs: support in batch multi blocks preallocation")
> Cc: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
> Cc: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> ---
>  fs/f2fs/data.c | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> index 9ae194f..1b17de2 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> @@ -696,6 +696,12 @@ int f2fs_map_blocks(struct inode *inode, struct f2fs_map_blocks *map,
>  		goto out;
>  	}
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * FIXME: without this, we get "warning: ‘last_ofs_in_node’ may be
> +	 * used uninitialized". It's not clear whether that can actually
> +	 * happen, so there is now a WARN_ON() checking for this.
> +	 */
> +	last_ofs_in_node = -1u;
>  next_dnode:
>  	if (create)
>  		f2fs_lock_op(sbi);
> @@ -796,6 +802,7 @@ int f2fs_map_blocks(struct inode *inode, struct f2fs_map_blocks *map,
>  		allocated = dn.node_changed;
>  
>  		map->m_len += dn.ofs_in_node - ofs_in_node;
> +		WARN_ON(last_ofs_in_node == -1u);
>  		if (prealloc && dn.ofs_in_node != last_ofs_in_node + 1) {
>  			err = -ENOSPC;
>  			goto sync_out;
> 

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 04/28] f2fs: replace a build-time warning with runtime WARN_ON

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 10:05:00 PM CEST Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2016/10/18 6:05, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > gcc is unsure about the use of last_ofs_in_node, which might happen
> > without a prior initialization:
> > 
> > fs/f2fs//git/arm-soc/fs/f2fs/data.c: In function ‘f2fs_map_blocks’:
> > fs/f2fs/data.c:799:54: warning: ‘last_ofs_in_node’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
> >    if (prealloc && dn.ofs_in_node != last_ofs_in_node + 1) {
> 
> In each round of dnode block traverse, we will init 'prealloc' and then update
> 'prealloc' and 'last_ofs_in_node' together in below lines of f2fs_map_blocks:
>                         if (flag == F2FS_GET_BLOCK_PRE_AIO) {
>                                 if (blkaddr == NULL_ADDR) {
>                                         prealloc++;
>                                         last_ofs_in_node = dn.ofs_in_node;
>                                 }
>                         }
> 
> Then in below codes, it is safe to use 'last_ofs_in_node' since we will check
> 'prealloc' firstly, so if 'prealloc' is non-zero, 'last_ofs_in_node' must be valid.
>         if (prealloc && dn.ofs_in_node != last_ofs_in_node + 1) {
> 
> So I think we should not add WARN_ON there.

Ok, that make sense. Thanks for taking a closer look!

Should we just set last_ofs_in_node to the same value as ofs_in_node
before the loop?

diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
index 9ae194f..14db4b7 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
@@ -716,7 +716,7 @@ int f2fs_map_blocks(struct inode *inode, struct f2fs_map_blocks *map,
 	}
 
 	prealloc = 0;
-	ofs_in_node = dn.ofs_in_node;
+	last_ofs_in_node = ofs_in_node = dn.ofs_in_node;
 	end_offset = ADDRS_PER_PAGE(dn.node_page, inode);
 
 next_block:

	Arnd

Re: [PATCH 04/28] f2fs: replace a build-time warning with runtime WARN_ON

[Chao Yu]

On 2016/10/26 22:57, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 10:05:00 PM CEST Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2016/10/18 6:05, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> gcc is unsure about the use of last_ofs_in_node, which might happen
>>> without a prior initialization:
>>>
>>> fs/f2fs//git/arm-soc/fs/f2fs/data.c: In function ‘f2fs_map_blocks’:
>>> fs/f2fs/data.c:799:54: warning: ‘last_ofs_in_node’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>>>    if (prealloc && dn.ofs_in_node != last_ofs_in_node + 1) {
>>
>> In each round of dnode block traverse, we will init 'prealloc' and then update
>> 'prealloc' and 'last_ofs_in_node' together in below lines of f2fs_map_blocks:
>>                         if (flag == F2FS_GET_BLOCK_PRE_AIO) {
>>                                 if (blkaddr == NULL_ADDR) {
>>                                         prealloc++;
>>                                         last_ofs_in_node = dn.ofs_in_node;
>>                                 }
>>                         }
>>
>> Then in below codes, it is safe to use 'last_ofs_in_node' since we will check
>> 'prealloc' firstly, so if 'prealloc' is non-zero, 'last_ofs_in_node' must be valid.
>>         if (prealloc && dn.ofs_in_node != last_ofs_in_node + 1) {
>>
>> So I think we should not add WARN_ON there.
> 
> Ok, that make sense. Thanks for taking a closer look!
> 
> Should we just set last_ofs_in_node to the same value as ofs_in_node
> before the loop?

I think it's OK as it can remove warning compiler reports. :)

Thanks,

> 
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> index 9ae194f..14db4b7 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> @@ -716,7 +716,7 @@ int f2fs_map_blocks(struct inode *inode, struct f2fs_map_blocks *map,
>  	}
>  
>  	prealloc = 0;
> -	ofs_in_node = dn.ofs_in_node;
> +	last_ofs_in_node = ofs_in_node = dn.ofs_in_node;
>  	end_offset = ADDRS_PER_PAGE(dn.node_page, inode);
>  
>  next_block:
> 
> 	Arnd
> 
> .
> 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Command Line: Reinvented for Modern Developers
Did the resurgence of CLI tooling catch you by surprise?
Reconnect with the command line and become more productive. 
Learn the new .NET and ASP.NET CLI. Get your free copy!
http://sdm.link/telerik
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel