| Message ID | ce098f42-f12c-4bc2-b37f-2f35c572eecf@moroto.mountain (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | btrfs: clean up an error code in btrfs_insert_raid_extent() | expand |
On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 12:42:55PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > It's more obvious to return a literal zero instead of "return ret;". > Plus Smatch complains that ret could be uninitialized if the > ordered_extent->bioc_list list is empty and this silences that > warning. > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org> With a slightly changed subject added to misc-next, thanks.
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c index 944e8f1862aa..9589362acfbf 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ int btrfs_insert_raid_extent(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, btrfs_put_bioc(bioc); } - return ret; + return 0; } int btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
It's more obvious to return a literal zero instead of "return ret;". Plus Smatch complains that ret could be uninitialized if the ordered_extent->bioc_list list is empty and this silences that warning. Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org> --- fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)