This was caught when syncing extent-io-tree.c into btrfs-progs. This
however isn't really a problem, the only way next would be uninitialized
is if we found the range we were looking for, and in this case we don't
care about next. However it's a compile error, so fix it up.
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
u64 *start_ret, u64 *end_ret, u32 bits)
{
struct extent_state *state;
- struct extent_state *prev = NULL, *next;
+ struct extent_state *prev = NULL, *next = NULL;
spin_lock(&tree->lock);