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 <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
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.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
