Hi David, Today Coverity reported a "Logically dead code" issue at fs/afs/cell.c:206:
if (!excl) { rcu_read_lock(); cell = afs_lookup_cell_rcu(net, name, namesz); rcu_read_unlock(); if (!IS_ERR(cell)) { if (excl) { afs_put_cell(net, cell); return ERR_PTR(-EEXIST); } goto wait_for_cell; } } The problem is that when this code block is executed, the code block starting at line 211 makes no sense, as _excl_ can never be true. I was wondering if the original intention was to null check _cell_ instead of checking _excl_. So I took a look into function afs_lookup_cell_rcu to see if _cell_ can be returned as a null pointer and at the same time the if condition at line 210 be true, but I couldn't see how that could be possible. It seems to me that when _ret_ is equal to zero, _cell_ cannot be null in afs_lookup_cell_rcu. But is case I'm wrong here and _cell_ could be null at line 210, then I think line 211 should be changed as follows: diff --git a/fs/afs/cell.c b/fs/afs/cell.c index 1858c91..a69a11f 100644 --- a/fs/afs/cell.c +++ b/fs/afs/cell.c @@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ struct afs_cell *afs_lookup_cell(struct afs_net *net, cell = afs_lookup_cell_rcu(net, name, namesz); rcu_read_unlock(); if (!IS_ERR(cell)) { - if (excl) { + if (cell) { afs_put_cell(net, cell); return ERR_PTR(-EEXIST); } But I'm suspicious about it. What do you think? Thanks -- Gustavo A. R. Silva