[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251218203743.GU3195@twin.jikos.cz>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 21:37:43 +0100
From: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
To: Qiang Ma <maqianga@...ontech.com>
Cc: clm@...com, dsterba@...e.com, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Fix -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning
On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 04:16:18PM +0800, Qiang Ma wrote:
> Fix a -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning by initializing
> the variable to NULL.
>
> $ make CFLAGS_tree-log.o=-Wmaybe-uninitialized
>
> In file included from fs/btrfs/ctree.h:21,
> from fs/btrfs/tree-log.c:12:
> fs/btrfs/accessors.h: In function 'replay_one_buffer':
> fs/btrfs/accessors.h:66:16: warning: 'inode_item' may be used uninitialized [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
> 66 | return btrfs_get_##bits(eb, s, offsetof(type, member)); \
> | ^~~~~~~~~~
> fs/btrfs/tree-log.c:2803:42: note: 'inode_item' declared here
> 2803 | struct btrfs_inode_item *inode_item;
> | ^~~~~~~~~~
>
> Warning was found when compiling using loongarch64-gcc 12.3.1.
We have the -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning enabled per fs/btrfs/
directory, there are no other known reports fixing the uninitialized
inode_item so this might be specific to loongarch gcc 12.x. I'll add the
patch to for-next as we still want to get all the warnings fixed, thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists