Re: [PATCH v2] fs/btrfs: Fix uninitialized variable
From: Khaled Romdhani
Date: Tue Apr 20 2021 - 09:39:30 EST
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 01:22:14PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 04:36:16PM +0100, Khaled ROMDHANI wrote:
> > As reported by the Coverity static analysis.
> > The variable zone is not initialized which
> > may causes a failed assertion.
> > Addresses-Coverity: ("Uninitialized variables")
> > Signed-off-by: Khaled ROMDHANI <khaledromdhani216@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v2: add a default case as proposed by David Sterba
> > ---
> > fs/btrfs/zoned.c | 3 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> > index eeb3ebe11d7a..82527308d165 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> > @@ -143,6 +143,9 @@ static inline u32 sb_zone_number(int shift, int mirror)
> > case 0: zone = 0; break;
> > case 1: zone = 1ULL << (BTRFS_SB_LOG_FIRST_SHIFT - shift); break;
> > case 2: zone = 1ULL << (BTRFS_SB_LOG_SECOND_SHIFT - shift); break;
> It took me a while to spot these break statements.
> > + default:
> > + zone = 0;
> > + break;
> This break needs to be indented one more tab.
> > }
> > ASSERT(zone <= U32_MAX);
> dan carpenter
Sorry, but I checked the patch using checkpatch.pl
before sending it. Is that blocks some smatch parsing process?
In any cases, I will send a V3.