On 05/30/2018 11:33 PM, David Sterba wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 02:49:10PM +0800, Su Yue wrote: >> btrfs_alloc_path() may fail due to no enough memory, >> so let the function return -ENOMEM instead of -ENOENT is better. >> >> Signed-off-by: Su Yue <suy.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> > > Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dste...@suse.com> > > Thanks. I've audited all return codes after failed path allocation, this > was the only one not matching. > > The return code of btrfs_cross_ref_exist should be also distinguished at > the call sites, as both places expect only the ENOENT but should not > react to ENOMEM as if it were ENOENT. > Not quite understand the last paragraph. Is necessary to send patches to make the two callers to distinguish ENOMEM and ENOENT?
Thanks, Su >
pEpkey.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
