On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 05:46:50PM +0800, Gu Jinxiang wrote:
> set_extent_bits may return 0/-EEXIST, so return the result in
> add_excluded_extent.
This is misleading, set_extent_bits can return anything that gets
propagated from the callees, which is 0 and -EEXIST for now but will be
also -ENOMEM eventually. And some callers expect values >= 0 (eg. in
btrfs_get_io_failure_record) , but I haven't examined if this can really
happen.
> Signed-off-by: Gu Jinxiang <g...@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 11 ++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> index 75cfb80d2551..2e85e99b5e6f 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> @@ -215,11 +215,16 @@ static int add_excluded_extent(struct btrfs_fs_info
> *fs_info,
> u64 start, u64 num_bytes)
> {
> u64 end = start + num_bytes - 1;
> - set_extent_bits(&fs_info->freed_extents[0],
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + ret = set_extent_bits(&fs_info->freed_extents[0],
> start, end, EXTENT_UPTODATE);
> - set_extent_bits(&fs_info->freed_extents[1],
> + if (ret)
> + goto out;
> + ret = set_extent_bits(&fs_info->freed_extents[1],
> start, end, EXTENT_UPTODATE);
> - return 0;
> +out:
The function is short and fairly linear so you don't need to add the
label, 'return ret' would be ok.
> + return ret;
> }
>
> static void free_excluded_extents(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> --
> 1.9.1
>
>
>
> --
> 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
--
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
