On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 01:55:39PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 01:47:51PM +0200, Andreas Bießmann wrote:

...

This patch fixes following warning: ---8<--- ext2fs.c: In function 'ext2fs_read_file': ext2fs.c:458:19: warning: 'blocknxt' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wuninitialized] --->8---

The warning was introduced in 436da3cd233e7166b5ce9293dbd28092cf37bcc9.

Signed-off-by: Andreas Bießmann andreas.devel@googlemail.com cc: Jason Cooper u-boot@lakedaemon.net cc: Eric Nelson eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com cc: Thierry Reding thierry.reding@avionic-design.de

---

fs/ext2/ext2fs.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/ext2/ext2fs.c b/fs/ext2/ext2fs.c index f1fce48..40b6e6f 100644 --- a/fs/ext2/ext2fs.c +++ b/fs/ext2/ext2fs.c @@ -440,7 +440,7 @@ int ext2fs_read_file /* grab middle blocks in one go */ if (i != pos / blocksize && i != blockcnt - 1 && blockcnt > 3) { int oldblk = blknr;

• 	int blocknxt;
  

• 	int blocknxt = blknr;
  while (i < blockcnt - 1) {
  	blocknxt = ext2fs_read_block(node, i + 1);
  	if (blocknxt == (oldblk + 1)) {
  

This doesn't look quite right. The warning should go away as well if you change the "i != blockcnt - 1" to "i < blockcnt - 1" in the condition above. I think that'd be more appropriate, but perhaps Jason is better qualified to comment.

I agree. The compiler is rightfully complaining because there is a scenario where blockcnt > 3 and i = blockcnt - 1. In this case, we would decend into the if() block, but not the while() block. blocknxt is used after the while() block, which would then be uninitialized.

By fixing the logic in the if() block, this can't happen. I've Ack'd Kim's version.

Thanks for testing, Thierry.

thx,

Jason.