| Message ID | cae144357b99745472aad5d3e98acb8028bfb2ee.1443121865.git.luisbg@osg.samsung.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 08:13:33PM +0100, Luis de Bethencourt wrote: > reada is using -1 instead of the -ENOMEM defined macro to specify that > a buffer allocation failed. Since the error number is propagated, the > caller will get a -EPERM which is the wrong error condition. > > Also, updating the caller to return the exact value from > reada_add_block. > > Smatch tool warning: > reada_add_block() warn: returning -1 instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy > > Signed-off-by: Luis de Bethencourt <luisbg@osg.samsung.com> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> -- 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
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/reada.c b/fs/btrfs/reada.c index 4645cd1..619f929 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/reada.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/reada.c @@ -569,7 +569,7 @@ static int reada_add_block(struct reada_control *rc, u64 logical, rec = kzalloc(sizeof(*rec), GFP_NOFS); if (!rec) { reada_extent_put(root->fs_info, re); - return -1; + return -ENOMEM; } rec->rc = rc; @@ -918,6 +918,7 @@ struct reada_control *btrfs_reada_add(struct btrfs_root *root, u64 start; u64 generation; int level; + int ret; struct extent_buffer *node; static struct btrfs_key max_key = { .objectid = (u64)-1, @@ -943,9 +944,10 @@ struct reada_control *btrfs_reada_add(struct btrfs_root *root, generation = btrfs_header_generation(node); free_extent_buffer(node); - if (reada_add_block(rc, start, &max_key, level, generation)) { + ret = reada_add_block(rc, start, &max_key, level, generation); + if (ret) { kfree(rc); - return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); + return ERR_PTR(ret); } reada_start_machine(root->fs_info);
reada is using -1 instead of the -ENOMEM defined macro to specify that a buffer allocation failed. Since the error number is propagated, the caller will get a -EPERM which is the wrong error condition. Also, updating the caller to return the exact value from reada_add_block. Smatch tool warning: reada_add_block() warn: returning -1 instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy Signed-off-by: Luis de Bethencourt <luisbg@osg.samsung.com> --- fs/btrfs/reada.c | 8 +++++--- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)