On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 05:02:38PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
> It's not serious if it doesn't have all the proper error handling
> and etc, it's just something for debugging purposes.
I'm slowly trying to remove static checker warnings so that we can
detect real bugs. People sometimes leave lit
On 04/04/16 18:02, Filipe Manana wrote:
> I use this function frequently during development, and there's a good
> reason to use it instead of the user space tool btrfs-debug-tree.
Good to know, that's why I asked. Printing unwritten extents makes sense.
-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Holger Hoffstätte
wrote:
> On 04/04/16 15:56, David Sterba wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 03:53:17PM +0100, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
>>> Dan Carpenter's static checker recently found missing IS_ERR handling
>>> in print-tree.c:btrfs_print_tree(). While looking in
On 04/04/16 15:56, David Sterba wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 03:53:17PM +0100, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
>> Dan Carpenter's static checker recently found missing IS_ERR handling
>> in print-tree.c:btrfs_print_tree(). While looking into this I found that
>> this function is no longer called anywh
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 03:53:17PM +0100, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> Dan Carpenter's static checker recently found missing IS_ERR handling
> in print-tree.c:btrfs_print_tree(). While looking into this I found that
> this function is no longer called anywhere and was moved to btrfs-progs
> long ago.
Dan Carpenter's static checker recently found missing IS_ERR handling
in print-tree.c:btrfs_print_tree(). While looking into this I found that
this function is no longer called anywhere and was moved to btrfs-progs
long ago. It can simply be removed.
Reported-by: Dan Carpenter
Signed-off-by: Holg
