xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [PATCH] Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the xfs tree

To: "Dave Chinner" <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the xfs tree
From: "Alex Elder" <aelder@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 22:54:05 -0600
Cc: <xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20100304111930.86f7cc62.sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100304005709.GE14317@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: Acq7NaHAnQRl2o8ZQo6+K/zdyX90JQAIRYa9
Thread-topic: [PATCH] Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the xfs tree

> Dave Chinner <mailto:david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 11:19:30AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Dave,
> >
> > After merging the xfs tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> > produced this warning:
> >
> > fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_aops.c: In function 'xfs_end_io':
> > fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_aops.c:232: warning: 'error' may be used uninitialized in this function
> >
> > Introduced by commit 77d7a0c2eeb285c9069e15396703d0cb9690ac50 ("xfs:
> > Non-blocking inode locking in IO completion").
> >
> > I can't tell if this is a false positive.  If the first two "if"
> > statement bodies are skipped, then error is tested uninitialised.  It is
> > possible that at least one of them has to be executed.
>
> Right, there is a warning being generated there - I thought I fixed
> that immediately after posting the first version of the patch. The
> second version:
>
> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2010-02/msg00340.html
>
> definitely had it fixed.
>
> Alex, can you make sure you take the entire patch rather than
> cutting and pasting bits from one patch version to another?  That
> way you don't miss small changes to the patch that might have been
> forgotten about....

I didn't expect you would change the patch content, only
the description.  I had already tested the previous code
so just grabbed the new description when you re-posted.
Sorry about the warning slipping through.  I'll incorporate
your fix below (tomorrow).

                               -Alex


> Stephen, the patch below should fix the warning.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> xfs: fix uninitialised variable warning in xfs_end_io
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_aops.c |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_aops.c b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_aops.c
> index f41a2d8..8989c16 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_aops.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_aops.c
> @@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ xfs_end_io(
>  {
>       xfs_ioend_t     *ioend = container_of(work, xfs_ioend_t, io_work);
>       struct xfs_inode *ip = XFS_I(ioend->io_inode);
> -     int             error;
> +     int             error = 0;

>       /*
>        * For unwritten extents we need to issue transactions to convert a
>
>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>