Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 2 Nov 2010 15:16:39 -0400 (EDT) | From | Lukas Czerner <> | Subject | Re: ext4_lazyinit_thread: 'ret' may be used uninitialized in this function |
| |
On Tue, 2 Nov 2010, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 04:27:26PM +0100, Lukas Czerner wrote: > > > > thank you for noticing this, because I actually do not see the warning > > (I wonder why...), but it is definitely a bug, so the trivial patch below > > should fix that. > > This is a slightly less trivial fix that eliminates the need for the > "ret" variable entirely. > > - Ted > > commit e048924538f0c62d18306e2fea0e22dac0140f6e > Author: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> > Date: Tue Nov 2 14:19:30 2010 -0400 > > ext4: "ret" may be used uninitialized in ext4_lazyinit_thread() > > Newer GCC's reported the following build warning: > > fs/ext4/super.c: In function 'ext4_lazyinit_thread': > fs/ext4/super.c:2702: warning: 'ret' may be used uninitialized in this function > > Fix it by removing the need for the ret variable in the first place. > > Signed-off-by: "Lukas Czerner" <lczerner@redhat.com> > Reported-by: "Stefan Richter" <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> > Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c > index 8d1d942..4d7ef31 100644 > --- a/fs/ext4/super.c > +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c > @@ -2699,7 +2699,6 @@ static int ext4_lazyinit_thread(void *arg) > struct ext4_li_request *elr; > unsigned long next_wakeup; > DEFINE_WAIT(wait); > - int ret; > > BUG_ON(NULL == eli); > > @@ -2723,13 +2722,12 @@ cont_thread: > elr = list_entry(pos, struct ext4_li_request, > lr_request); > > - if (time_after_eq(jiffies, elr->lr_next_sched)) > - ret = ext4_run_li_request(elr); > - > - if (ret) { > - ret = 0; > - ext4_remove_li_request(elr); > - continue; > + if (time_after_eq(jiffies, elr->lr_next_sched)) { > + if (ext4_run_li_request(elr) != 0) { > + /* error, remove the lazy_init job */
It is not removed only in the case of error, but even if it hits the last group, so I would just omit the "error" part.
> + ext4_remove_li_request(elr); > + continue; > + } > } > > if (time_before(elr->lr_next_sched, next_wakeup)) >
Otherwise looks good to me.
-Lukas
| |