[PATCH] FS: cifs: Fix compile warning

[PATCH] FS: cifs: Fix compile warning

[Javier Martinez Canillas]

In today linux-next I got a compile warning due a possibly uninitialized variable

This trivial patch solves the issue

Thanks a lot

Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <martinez.javier@gmail.com>
---
 fs/cifs/cifssmb.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c b/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c
index c65c341..ee1bba4 100644
--- a/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c
+++ b/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c
@@ -3079,7 +3079,7 @@ CIFSSMBGetCIFSACL(const int xid, struct cifsTconInfo *tcon, __u16 fid,
 		__u32 parm_len;
 		__u32 acl_len;
 		struct smb_com_ntransact_rsp *pSMBr;
-		char *pdata;
+		char *pdata = NULL;
 
 /* validate_nttransact */
 		rc = validate_ntransact(iov[0].iov_base, (char **)&parm,
-- 
1.7.0.4

Re: [PATCH] FS: cifs: Fix compile warning

[Steve French]

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas
<martinez.javier@gmail.com> wrote:
> In today linux-next I got a compile warning due a possibly uninitialized variable
>
> This trivial patch solves the issue
>
> Thanks a lot
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <martinez.javier@gmail.com>
> ---
>  fs/cifs/cifssmb.c |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c b/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c
> index c65c341..ee1bba4 100644
> --- a/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c
> +++ b/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c
> @@ -3079,7 +3079,7 @@ CIFSSMBGetCIFSACL(const int xid, struct cifsTconInfo *tcon, __u16 fid,
>                __u32 parm_len;
>                __u32 acl_len;
>                struct smb_com_ntransact_rsp *pSMBr;
> -               char *pdata;
> +               char *pdata = NULL;

This looks like a compiler problem - the variable is always
initialized by validate_ntransact except when
buf (which contains the smb) is null, when it returns -EINVAL and in
that case pdata is not used.
Setting it to null would not help anyway - if it were left as null it
would oops on the memcpy (where pdata is used).

This area of code has not changed recently.


-- 
Thanks,

Steve