redonkable
/
alistair23-linux
1
0
Fork 0
Code Releases Activity

btrfs: check-integrity: Fix returned errno codes 

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

Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Luis de Bethencourt <luisbg@osg.samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
hifive-unleashed-5.1
Luis de Bethencourt 2015-10-20 14:56:22 +01:00 committed by David Sterba
parent d91876496b
commit 0b8d8ce029
1 changed files with 2 additions and 2 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
View File

@ -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++) {