On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 08:29:26AM -0800, David Brown wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > > > >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.
Sure. I can resend it. regards, dan carpenter
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
