Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1230445 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Luis de Bethencourt <luisbg@osg.samsung.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-22 18:30 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-09-23 10:50 +0200 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
[PATCH 2/2] btrfs: reada: Fix returned errno code Luis de Bethencourt <luisbg@osg.samsung.com> - 2015-09-22 18:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 2/2] btrfs: reada: Fix returned errno code David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> - 2015-09-23 10:50 +0200
| From | Luis de Bethencourt <luisbg@osg.samsung.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-22 18:30 +0200 |
| Subject | [PATCH 2/2] btrfs: reada: Fix returned errno code |
| Message-ID | <qbyC5-2cv-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
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.
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 | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/reada.c b/fs/btrfs/reada.c
index 4645cd1..5bfd3cd 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;
--
2.5.3
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-23 10:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qbNUu-7t6-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1230445 |
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 05:29:39PM +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.
>
> 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 | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/reada.c b/fs/btrfs/reada.c
> index 4645cd1..5bfd3cd 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;
When called from btrfs_reada_add, the return value is ignored and
overriden as ENOMEM. Please also update the caller to return the exact
value from reada_add_block.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web