lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-02 20:19    [W:0.087 / U:0.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site