On Fri, 9 May 2014 15:00:07 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Hello Stefan Behrens,
>
> The patch 5db0276014b8: "Btrfs: add optional integrity check code"
> from Nov 1, 2011, leads to the following static checker warning:
>
> fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c:1099 btrfsic_process_metablock()
> warn: missing error code here? 'btrfsic_stack_frame_alloc()' failed.
> 'sf->error' = '0'
>
> fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
> 1092
> 1093 next_stack =
> 1094
> btrfsic_stack_frame_alloc();
> 1095 if (NULL == next_stack) {
> 1096
> btrfsic_release_block_ctx(
> 1097 &sf->
> 1098
> next_block_ctx);
>
> Should we set "sf->error" here? I don't know the code well enough to
> say the answer.
>
> 1099 goto
> one_stack_frame_backwards;
> 1100 }
> 1101
> 1102 next_stack->i = -1;
Looking at this function immediately made me blind and getting terrible
headache, therefore I can only guess whether not setting sf->error was
intentional or not three years ago. Nowadays, I'd set sf->error since
this propagates the error condition upwards. Although it doesn't make a
difference to the user and doesn't cause a crash whether it is set or
not. But if the function returns an error/success status, and an error
was detected, the error status should be returned. I'll send a patch.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
