Hi Antonio, Dan, I have an idea how to refactor the code a little to make the static analyzer happy. Will send a patch soon, but first I want to check that it won't affect functionality. On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 10:01:42AM +0200, Antonio Quartulli wrote: > On 17/07/2025 06:56, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > No, it won't. I feel like the code is confusing enough that maybe a > > comment is warranted. /* We always iterate through the loop at least > > once so be_prev is correct. */ > > > > I agree a comment would help. I see, will add a comment. > > Another option would be to initialize the be_prev to NULL. This will > > silence the uninitialized variable warning. > > But will likely trigger a potential NULL-ptr-deref, because the static > analyzer believes we can get there with count==0. I agree, this will most likely result in another warning. -- Sergey Bashirov
