On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 07:24:56PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> Fix various code sloppinesses pointed out by Coverity.
>
> Coverity-id: 1371628 - 1371638
> @@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ fsmap(
> high.rm_owner = ULLONG_MAX;
> high.rm_offset = ULLONG_MAX;
> high.rm_flags = XFS_RMAP_ATTR_FORK | XFS_RMAP_BMBT_BLOCK | XFS_RMAP_UNWRITTEN;
> + high.rm_blockcount = low.rm_blockcount = 0;
Do the low initialization near the remaining low fields?
or better do a struct initialization ala
struct xfs_rmap_irec low = { 0, };
struct xfs_rmap_irec high = { 0, };
that ensures the who;le structure is zero-filled for uninitialized
fields.
> diff --git a/repair/phase5.c b/repair/phase5.c
> index e583879..5a7185c 100644
> --- a/repair/phase5.c
> +++ b/repair/phase5.c
> @@ -1464,7 +1464,7 @@ prop_rmap_cursor(
> * and set the rightsib pointer of current block
> */
> #ifdef XR_BLD_INO_TRACE
> - fprintf(stderr, " ino prop agbno %d ", lptr->prev_agbno);
> + fprintf(stderr, " rmap prop agbno %d ", lptr->prev_agbno);
> #endif
Did Coveryity really point this out? :)
> @@ -1548,6 +1548,7 @@ prop_rmap_highkey(
> bt_key->rm_offset = cpu_to_be64(
> libxfs_rmap_irec_offset_pack(&high_key));
>
> + key.rm_blockcount = 0;
should probably be a struct initializer again
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
