On 2016/10/26 22:57, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 10:05:00 PM CEST Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2016/10/18 6:05, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> gcc is unsure about the use of last_ofs_in_node, which might happen
>>> without a prior initialization:
>>>
>>> fs/f2fs//git/arm-soc/fs/f2fs/data.c: In function ‘f2fs_map_blocks’:
>>> fs/f2fs/data.c:799:54: warning: ‘last_ofs_in_node’ may be used
>>> uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>>> if (prealloc && dn.ofs_in_node != last_ofs_in_node + 1) {
>>
>> In each round of dnode block traverse, we will init 'prealloc' and then
>> update
>> 'prealloc' and 'last_ofs_in_node' together in below lines of f2fs_map_blocks:
>> if (flag == F2FS_GET_BLOCK_PRE_AIO) {
>> if (blkaddr == NULL_ADDR) {
>> prealloc++;
>> last_ofs_in_node = dn.ofs_in_node;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Then in below codes, it is safe to use 'last_ofs_in_node' since we will check
>> 'prealloc' firstly, so if 'prealloc' is non-zero, 'last_ofs_in_node' must be
>> valid.
>> if (prealloc && dn.ofs_in_node != last_ofs_in_node + 1) {
>>
>> So I think we should not add WARN_ON there.
>
> Ok, that make sense. Thanks for taking a closer look!
>
> Should we just set last_ofs_in_node to the same value as ofs_in_node
> before the loop?
I think it's OK as it can remove warning compiler reports. :)
Thanks,
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> index 9ae194f..14db4b7 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> @@ -716,7 +716,7 @@ int f2fs_map_blocks(struct inode *inode, struct
> f2fs_map_blocks *map,
> }
>
> prealloc = 0;
> - ofs_in_node = dn.ofs_in_node;
> + last_ofs_in_node = ofs_in_node = dn.ofs_in_node;
> end_offset = ADDRS_PER_PAGE(dn.node_page, inode);
>
> next_block:
>
> Arnd
>
> .
>
