On 19.07.2018 17:49, Josef Bacik wrote:
> If we're trying to make a data reservation and we have to allocate a
> data chunk we could leak ret == 1, as do_chunk_alloc() will return 1 if
> it allocated a chunk. Since the end of the function is the success path
> just return 0.
>
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jo...@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nbori...@suse.com>
The logic flow in this function is a steaming pile of turd and is in
dire need of refactoring...
> ---
> fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> index 523bc197c40b..6de9a180abdd 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> @@ -4360,7 +4360,7 @@ int btrfs_alloc_data_chunk_ondemand(struct btrfs_inode
> *inode, u64 bytes)
> data_sinfo->flags, bytes, 1);
> spin_unlock(&data_sinfo->lock);
>
> - return ret;
> + return 0;
> }
>
> int btrfs_check_data_free_space(struct inode *inode,
>
--
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
