[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgO3MPjPpf_ARyW6zpwwPZtxXYQgMLbmj2bnbOLnR+6Cg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:53:52 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matej Kupljen <matej.kupljen@...il.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tmpfs: fix uninitialized return value in shmem_link
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 10:35 PM Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> When we made the shmem_reserve_inode call in shmem_link conditional, we
> forgot to update the declaration for ret so that it always has a known
> value. Dan Carpenter pointed out this deficiency in the original patch.
Applied.
Side note: how come gcc didn't warn about this? Yes, we disable that
warning for some cases because of lots of false positives, but I
thought the *default* setup still had it.
Is it just that the goto ends up confusing gcc enough that it never notices?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists