On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:22:21 +0000 David Howells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > - inode = ERR_PTR(ret);
> > > + return NULL;
> > > } else {
> > > unlock_new_inode(inode);
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > Yup.
>
> Nope. The correct fix is to make the various callers use IS_ERR() to check
> the result of this function rather than checking for a NULL return.
>
> > David, this is concerning. More such error-path bugs in that code will take
> > years and years to get found and fixed.
>
> Yes, I know. I've looked over the patches several times, however I know there
> may be bugs in there because I may have made assumptions about what I've
> written that cause me to overlook things. It's a danger of checking your own
> code:-(
>
> > The best way to eliminate them is a line-by-line re-review of the patchset.
>
> And ideally by someone other than me. Some of them have been reviewed by
> other people, but I'm not sure that all have.
>
> However, I've just had another look through. ISOFS appears to be the only one
> in which I'd missed updating the callers. I've sent you a patch for it.
>
> Note that I expressed reservations about three filesystems in the cover note
> (FAT, HPPFS and HOSTFS), but nothing seems to have come of it.
>
Nobody seems to look after hppfs. I'll resend the fat and hostfs patches to
maintainers for a review, please.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
