Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Luis de Bethencourt <> | Subject | [RESEND PATCH 1/2] btrfs: check-integrity: Fix returned errno codes | Date | Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:56:22 +0100 |
| |
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> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.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 541fbfa..9cacd06 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
| |