Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 20 Apr 2021 14:39:21 +0100
From:   Khaled Romdhani <khaledromdhani216@gmail.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc:     clm@fb.com, josef@toxicpanda.com, dsterba@suse.com,
        linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, khaledromdhani216@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs/btrfs: Fix uninitialized variable
Message-ID: <20210420133921.GB3433@ard0534>
References: <20210417153616.25056-1-khaledromdhani216@gmail.com>
 <20210420102214.GA1981@kadam>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210420102214.GA1981@kadam>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 01:22:14PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 04:36:16PM +0100, Khaled ROMDHANI wrote:
> > As reported by the Coverity static analysis.
> > The variable zone is not initialized which
> > may causes a failed assertion.
> > 
> > Addresses-Coverity: ("Uninitialized variables")
> > Signed-off-by: Khaled ROMDHANI <khaledromdhani216@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > v2: add a default case as proposed by David Sterba
> > ---
> >  fs/btrfs/zoned.c | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> > index eeb3ebe11d7a..82527308d165 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> > @@ -143,6 +143,9 @@ static inline u32 sb_zone_number(int shift, int mirror)
> >  	case 0: zone = 0; break;
> >  	case 1: zone = 1ULL << (BTRFS_SB_LOG_FIRST_SHIFT - shift); break;
> >  	case 2: zone = 1ULL << (BTRFS_SB_LOG_SECOND_SHIFT - shift); break;
> 
> It took me a while to spot these break statements.
> 
> > +	default:
> > +		zone = 0;
> > +	break;
> 
> This break needs to be indented one more tab.
> 
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	ASSERT(zone <= U32_MAX);
> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter

Sorry, but I checked the patch using checkpatch.pl
before sending it. Is that blocks some smatch parsing process?

In any cases, I will send a V3.

Thanks.