On 04/04/16 15:56, David Sterba wrote: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 03:53:17PM +0100, Holger Hoffstätte wrote: >> Dan Carpenter's static checker recently found missing IS_ERR handling >> in print-tree.c:btrfs_print_tree(). While looking into this I found that >> this function is no longer called anywhere and was moved to btrfs-progs >> long ago. It can simply be removed. > > I'm not sure, the function could be used for debugging, and it's hard to
..but is it? So far nobody has complained. > say if we'll ever need it. Printing the whole tree to the system log > would produce a lot of text so some manual filtering would be required, > the function could serve as a template. The original problem of missing error handling from btrfs_read_tree_block() remains as well. I don't remember if that also was true for the btrfs-progs counterpart, but in in any case I didn't really know what to do there. Print an error? silently ignore the stripe? abort? When I realized that the function was not called anywhere, deleting it seemed more effective. Under what circumstances would the in-kernel function be more practical or useful than the userland tool? It does the same, won't disturb or wedge the kernel further, is up-to-date and can be scripted. I agree that in-place filtering (while iterating) would be nice to have, but that's also a whole different problem and would IMHO also be better suited for userland. When in doubt cut it out. Holger -- 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
