lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Mar]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [CHECKER] question about functions that can fail
Date
Dawson writes:
> right now we are trying to derive which functions can "reasonably" fail
> by examining all call sites and recording the number of times functions
> are checked vs not checked.

First of all, thanks for this interesting work you are doing. Pre-emptive
bug squashing is great. Probably saved many man-years of grief for people
who are having intermittent problems, or have uncommon hardware/configuration.

> I've included the most egregious cases of check/not checked:
>
> parse_options : 14 : 1:

It appears you are not making a distinction between static functions and
global functions. The parse_options function is local to ext2, but since
many filesystem writers look at ext2 for guidance, they often have functions
with similar names. It looks like parse_options is one of the common ones.

That said, I'm guessing the 1 time the return value isn't checked is a bug.
It appears to be in fs/proc/inode.c, and the parse_options() there _does_
return 1 on error (unknown mount option), so we _should_ probably fail
mounting /proc in that case.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto,
\ would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?"
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ -- Dogbert
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [W:0.029 / U:0.776 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site