On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 08:29:26AM -0800, David Brown wrote:

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:30:55AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:

quoted

Gcc warns that "ret" can be used uninitialized.  It can't actually be
used uninitialized because btrfs_num_copies() always returns 1 or more.

Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <redacted>

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c b/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
index 064b29b..c053e90 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c

@@ -643,7 +643,7 @@ static struct btrfsic_dev_state *btrfsic_dev_state_hashtable_lookup(

static int btrfsic_process_superblock(struct btrfsic_state *state,
			      struct btrfs_fs_devices *fs_devices)
{
-	int ret;
+	int ret = 0;

Does

	int uninitialized_var(ret);

work?  The assignment to zero actually generates additional
(unnecessary) code.

Sure.  I can resend it.

regards,
dan carpenter