Stefan Hajnoczi
2022-Sep-06 13:30 UTC
[PATCH] virtiofs: Drop unnecessary initialization in send_forget_request and virtio_fs_get_tree
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 01:38:48AM -0400, Deming Wang wrote:> The variable is initialized but it is only used after its assignment. > > Signed-off-by: Deming Wang <wangdeming at inspur.com> > --- > fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c b/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c > index 4d8d4f16c..bffe74d44 100644 > --- a/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c > +++ b/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c > @@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ static int send_forget_request(struct virtio_fs_vq *fsvq, > { > struct scatterlist sg; > struct virtqueue *vq; > - int ret = 0; > + int ret; > bool notify; > struct virtio_fs_forget_req *req = &forget->req; >That causes an uninitialized access in the source tree I'm looking at (c5e4d5e99162ba8025d58a3af7ad103f155d2df7): static int send_forget_request(struct virtio_fs_vq *fsvq, struct virtio_fs_forget *forget, bool in_flight) { struct scatterlist sg; struct virtqueue *vq; int ret = 0; ^^^^^^^ bool notify; struct virtio_fs_forget_req *req = &forget->req; spin_lock(&fsvq->lock); if (!fsvq->connected) { if (in_flight) dec_in_flight_req(fsvq); kfree(forget); goto out; ... out: spin_unlock(&fsvq->lock); return ret; ^^^ } What is the purpose of this patch? Is there a compiler warning (if so, which compiler and version)? Do you have a static analysis tool that reported this (if yes, then maybe it's broken)? Stefan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/attachments/20220906/effb3c25/attachment.sig>