| Message ID | 20180530064910.8724-1-suy.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 30.05.2018 09:49, Su Yue wrote: > btrfs_alloc_path() may fail due to no enough memory, > so let the function return -ENOMEM instead of -ENOENT is better. > > Signed-off-by: Su Yue <suy.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com> > --- > Changelog: > v2: > Add commit message to describe the patch. Thanks Nikolay. > > fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c > index 44093f92a532..99df6199dffc 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c > @@ -3311,7 +3311,7 @@ int btrfs_cross_ref_exist(struct btrfs_root *root, u64 objectid, u64 offset, > > path = btrfs_alloc_path(); > if (!path) > - return -ENOENT; > + return -ENOMEM; > > do { > ret = check_committed_ref(root, path, objectid, > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 02:49:10PM +0800, Su Yue wrote: > btrfs_alloc_path() may fail due to no enough memory, > so let the function return -ENOMEM instead of -ENOENT is better. > > Signed-off-by: Su Yue <suy.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Thanks. I've audited all return codes after failed path allocation, this was the only one not matching. The return code of btrfs_cross_ref_exist should be also distinguished at the call sites, as both places expect only the ENOENT but should not react to ENOMEM as if it were ENOENT. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 05/30/2018 11:33 PM, David Sterba wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 02:49:10PM +0800, Su Yue wrote: >> btrfs_alloc_path() may fail due to no enough memory, >> so let the function return -ENOMEM instead of -ENOENT is better. >> >> Signed-off-by: Su Yue <suy.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > > Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> > > Thanks. I've audited all return codes after failed path allocation, this > was the only one not matching. > > The return code of btrfs_cross_ref_exist should be also distinguished at > the call sites, as both places expect only the ENOENT but should not > react to ENOMEM as if it were ENOENT. > Not quite understand the last paragraph. Is necessary to send patches to make the two callers to distinguish ENOMEM and ENOENT? Thanks, Su >
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c index 44093f92a532..99df6199dffc 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c @@ -3311,7 +3311,7 @@ int btrfs_cross_ref_exist(struct btrfs_root *root, u64 objectid, u64 offset, path = btrfs_alloc_path(); if (!path) - return -ENOENT; + return -ENOMEM; do { ret = check_committed_ref(root, path, objectid,
btrfs_alloc_path() may fail due to no enough memory, so let the function return -ENOMEM instead of -ENOENT is better. Signed-off-by: Su Yue <suy.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> --- Changelog: v2: Add commit message to describe the patch. Thanks Nikolay. fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)