reada 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, updating the caller to return the exact value from
reada_add_block.
Smatch tool warning:
reada_add_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/reada.c | 8 +++++---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/reada.c b/fs/btrfs/reada.c
index 4645cd1..619f929 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/reada.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/reada.c
@@ -569,7 +569,7 @@ static int reada_add_block(struct reada_control *rc, u64
logical,
rec = kzalloc(sizeof(*rec), GFP_NOFS);
if (!rec) {
reada_extent_put(root->fs_info, re);
- return -1;
+ return -ENOMEM;
}
rec->rc = rc;
@@ -918,6 +918,7 @@ struct reada_control *btrfs_reada_add(struct btrfs_root
*root,
u64 start;
u64 generation;
int level;
+ int ret;
struct extent_buffer *node;
static struct btrfs_key max_key = {
.objectid = (u64)-1,
@@ -943,9 +944,10 @@ struct reada_control *btrfs_reada_add(struct btrfs_root
*root,
generation = btrfs_header_generation(node);
free_extent_buffer(node);
- if (reada_add_block(rc, start, &max_key, level, generation)) {
+ ret = reada_add_block(rc, start, &max_key, level, generation);
+ if (ret) {
kfree(rc);
- return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
+ return ERR_PTR(ret);
}
reada_start_machine(root->fs_info);
--
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
