On 2023/5/16 09:34, zhangshida wrote:
From: Shida Zhang <zhangshida@xxxxxxxxxx>
From: Shida Zhang <zhangshida@xxxxxxxxxx>
This fixes the following warning reported by gcc 10 under x86_64:
Full gcc version please.
Especially you need to check if your gcc10 is the latest release.
If newer gcc (12.2.1) tested without such error, it may very possible to
be a false alert.
And in fact it is.
@first_dir_index would only be assigned to @last_range_start if
last_range_end != 0.
Thus the loop must have to be executed once, and @last_range_start won't
be zero.
Please do check your environment (especially your gcc version and
backports), before sending such trivial patches.
Under most cases, it helps nobody.
Thanks,
Qu
../fs/btrfs/tree-log.c: In function ‘btrfs_log_inode’:
../fs/btrfs/tree-log.c:6211:9: error: ‘last_range_start’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
6211 | ret = insert_dir_log_key(trans, log, path, key.objectid,
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
6212 | first_dir_index, last_dir_index);
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
../fs/btrfs/tree-log.c:6161:6: note: ‘last_range_start’ was declared here
6161 | u64 last_range_start;
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reported-by: k2ci <kernel-bot@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Shida Zhang <zhangshida@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/btrfs/tree-log.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
index 9b212e8c70cc..d2755d5e338b 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
@@ -6158,7 +6158,7 @@ static int log_delayed_deletions_incremental(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
{
struct btrfs_root *log = inode->root->log_root;
const struct btrfs_delayed_item *curr;
- u64 last_range_start;
+ u64 last_range_start = 0;
u64 last_range_end = 0;
struct btrfs_key key;