check-integrity is using -1 instead of the -ENOMEM defined macro to
specify that a buffer allocation failed. Since the error number is
propagated, the caller will get a -EPERM which is the wrong error
condition.
Also, the smatch tool complains with the following warnings:
btrfsic_process_superblock() warn: returning -1 instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy
btrfsic_read_block() warn: returning -1 instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy
Signed-off-by: Luis de Bethencourt <lui...@osg.samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dste...@suse.com>
---
fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c b/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
index 541fbfa..9cacd06 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
@@ -667,7 +667,7 @@ static int btrfsic_process_superblock(struct btrfsic_state
*state,
selected_super = kzalloc(sizeof(*selected_super), GFP_NOFS);
if (NULL == selected_super) {
printk(KERN_INFO "btrfsic: error, kmalloc failed!\n");
- return -1;
+ return -ENOMEM;
}
list_for_each_entry(device, dev_head, dev_list) {
@@ -1660,7 +1660,7 @@ static int btrfsic_read_block(struct btrfsic_state *state,
sizeof(*block_ctx->pagev)) *
num_pages, GFP_NOFS);
if (!block_ctx->mem_to_free)
- return -1;
+ return -ENOMEM;
block_ctx->datav = block_ctx->mem_to_free;
block_ctx->pagev = (struct page **)(block_ctx->datav + num_pages);
for (i = 0; i < num_pages; i++) {
--
2.5.3
--
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
