Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1230446 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Luis de Bethencourt <luisbg@osg.samsung.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-22 18:30 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-09-23 11:00 +0200 |
| Articles | 4 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
[PATCH 0/2] btrfs: Fix returned errno codes Luis de Bethencourt <luisbg@osg.samsung.com> - 2015-09-22 18:30 +0200
[PATCH 1/2] btrfs: check-integrity: Fix returned errno codes Luis de Bethencourt <luisbg@osg.samsung.com> - 2015-09-22 18:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: check-integrity: Fix returned errno codes David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> - 2015-09-23 10:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/2] btrfs: Fix returned errno codes David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> - 2015-09-23 11:00 +0200
| From | Luis de Bethencourt <luisbg@osg.samsung.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-22 18:30 +0200 |
| Subject | [PATCH 0/2] btrfs: Fix returned errno codes |
| Message-ID | <qbyC5-2cv-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
From: Luis de Bethencourt <luis@debethencourt.com> Hi, These two patches fix instances where -1 is used to specify a buffer allocation fail, instead of using -ENOMEM. I could merge the two patches into one if that's more appropriate. Thanks, Luis Luis de Bethencourt (2): btrfs: check-integrity: Fix returned errno codes btrfs: reada: Fix returned errno code fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c | 4 ++-- fs/btrfs/reada.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) -- 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 | Luis de Bethencourt <luisbg@osg.samsung.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-22 18:40 +0200 |
| Subject | [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: check-integrity: Fix returned errno codes |
| Message-ID | <qbyLN-2nO-43@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1230446 |
check-integrity 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, the smatch tool complains with the following warnings:
btrfsic_process_superblock() warn: returning -1 instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy
btrfsic_read_block() warn: returning -1 instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy
Signed-off-by: Luis de Bethencourt <luisbg@osg.samsung.com>
---
fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c b/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
index ce7dec8..a6257e1 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
@@ -667,7 +667,7 @@ static int btrfsic_process_superblock(struct btrfsic_state *state,
selected_super = kzalloc(sizeof(*selected_super), GFP_NOFS);
if (NULL == selected_super) {
printk(KERN_INFO "btrfsic: error, kmalloc failed!\n");
- return -1;
+ return -ENOMEM;
}
list_for_each_entry(device, dev_head, dev_list) {
@@ -1660,7 +1660,7 @@ static int btrfsic_read_block(struct btrfsic_state *state,
sizeof(*block_ctx->pagev)) *
num_pages, GFP_NOFS);
if (!block_ctx->mem_to_free)
- return -1;
+ return -ENOMEM;
block_ctx->datav = block_ctx->mem_to_free;
block_ctx->pagev = (struct page **)(block_ctx->datav + num_pages);
for (i = 0; i < num_pages; i++) {
--
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] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-23 10:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: check-integrity: Fix returned errno codes |
| Message-ID | <qbNUw-7t6-49@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1230454 |
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 05:29:38PM +0100, Luis de Bethencourt wrote: > check-integrity 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. Agreed. btrfsic_process_superblock can be called from the mount path so getting EPERM would be confusing. > Also, the smatch tool complains with the following warnings: > btrfsic_process_superblock() warn: returning -1 instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy > btrfsic_read_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-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] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-23 11:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qbO49-7Ek-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1230446 |
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 05:29:37PM +0100, Luis de Bethencourt wrote: > These two patches fix instances where -1 is used to specify a buffer > allocation fail, instead of using -ENOMEM. > > I could merge the two patches into one if that's more appropriate. No, it's better to change them separately. If you change the return value, also look at all the callers so you can see the impact of the change and count that into the "size of the patch". -- 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