* Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (phi...@redhat.com) wrote:
> Fix warning reported by Clang static code analyzer:
>
> CC tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.o
> tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c:925:9: warning: Value stored to 'newfd' is
> never read
> newfd = -1;
> ^ ~~
> tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c:942:9: warning: Value stored to 'newfd' is
> never read
> newfd = -1;
> ^ ~~
>
> Fixes: 7c6b66027
> Reported-by: Clang Static Analyzer
> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com>
OK; actually one of those is in upstream, and another was added
by Miklos's 'virtiofsd: fail when parent inode isn't known in
lo_do_lookup()' - which kind of balances that if out.
I suspect the reason was because out_err: closes newfd if it's
not -1, so they were keeping it safe like that just in case another
error case gets added.
Dave
> ---
> v2: do not set newfd, use it (jtomko)
> ---
> tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c | 2 --
> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> index e9e71d5fc2..02ff01fad0 100644
> --- a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> +++ b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> @@ -922,7 +922,6 @@ static int lo_do_lookup(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t
> parent, const char *name,
> inode = lo_find(lo, &e->attr);
> if (inode) {
> close(newfd);
> - newfd = -1;
> } else {
> inode = calloc(1, sizeof(struct lo_inode));
> if (!inode) {
> @@ -939,7 +938,6 @@ static int lo_do_lookup(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t
> parent, const char *name,
>
> inode->nlookup = 1;
> inode->fd = newfd;
> - newfd = -1;
> inode->key.ino = e->attr.st_ino;
> inode->key.dev = e->attr.st_dev;
> pthread_mutex_init(&inode->plock_mutex, NULL);
> --
> 2.21.1
>
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
