Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:14:49 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] repair: fix some valgrind reported errors on i686
Message-ID: <20111010131449.GA15671@infradead.org>
References: <1318201910-11144-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com>
 <1318201910-11144-3-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com>
 <20111009234529.GA13527@infradead.org>
 <20111010002017.GQ3159@dastard>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20111010002017.GQ3159@dastard>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:20:17AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > Call me stupid, but I can't see how this could actually be a real
> > life issue.  The first thing we do in the loop is to to write
> > to fsbno in btree_find.  I'm fine adding this to shut up warnins,
> > but I can't see a real issue.
> 
> If btree_find() fails to find the key being looked up, it returns
> without having initialised fsbno.

Indeed.  The normal pattern for btree_find seems to be:

	obj = btree_find(tree, key, &key_ptr);
	if (!obj)
		return;

which makes this fine.

The code in pf_batch_read effectively boils down to that due to
the 

	while (bplist[num] && num < MAX_BUFS && fsbno < max_fsbno) {

loop which stops executing the first conditional that evaluated to
false.  So I can't see how this actually ever had an affect, but I'm
fine with fixing the warnings.

Btw, did I mention that the while loop over the bplist is completely
non-intuitive?