> On Aug 2, 2022, at 9:31 PM, Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 06:49:02AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 12:03:11PM -0700, Sherry Yang wrote: >>> Path through non-void function 'xfs_defer_finish_one' may return error >>> uninitialized if no iteration of 'list_for_each_safe' occurs. Fix this >>> by initializing error. >> >> I didn't think this situation was possible - how do we get deferred >> work queued with no work items on it? >> >> If we can return an uninitialised error from xfs_defer_finish_one() >> because of an empty queued work, then something else has gone wrong >> earlier in the work deferral process. If this can actually happen, >> then we need to fix whatever is creating the empty work rather than >> paper over it by initialising the error being returned for empty >> works... > > /me bets this is a response to a static checker that doesn't know that > list_empty(&dfp->dfp_work) == false in all circumstances. It's not > possible for tp->t_dfops to contain an xfs_defer_pending with no work > items. Hi Darrick, You’re correct. This is a false positive bug detected by our static code analysis tool. Sorry for the noise. Sherry > > --D > >> Cheers, >> >> Dave. >> -- >> Dave Chinner >> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
