On 09/14/2012 04:58 PM, Aristeu Rozanski wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 01:55:55PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 01:54:34PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 09:35:54PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: >>>> Prevent warnings generated by smatch due to unchecked dereference of >>>> 'new_xattr' in __simple_xattr_set(). >>> >>> Isn't this an actual bug w/ or w/o smatch? Remove request (NULL >>> @value) w/o XATTR_REPLACE for an non-existent node would end up >>> calling list_add() on NULL, right? If so, please collapse these two >>> patches and mention the actual bug instead of smatch warning. >> >> And can somebody please make that function less confusing? - >> restructuring / commenting whatever. It's doing something simple. >> It's not supposed to be this confusing. > > I'll work on that. >
As it's still happening in linux-next, should I send a simple patch to fix it along with Tejun's comments? Or is the rewrite of __simple_xattr_set() behind the corner? Thanks, Sasha -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
