On 05/17/12 15:46, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 03:31:50PM +0200, Arne Jansen wrote:
The assumption here is that if err == 0, eb is always != NULL. There's
even a tiny comment above the function stating this:
107 /* in case of err, eb might be NULL */
Ah,
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 03:31:50PM +0200, Arne Jansen wrote:
> The assumption here is that if err == 0, eb is always != NULL. There's
> even a tiny comment above the function stating this:
>
> 107 /* in case of err, eb might be NULL */
>
Ah, right. I missed the comment.
> Th
On 05/17/12 09:14, Dan Carpenter wrote:
Hi, I'm working on some new Smatch code and it complains about this
patch from last year. -Dan
This is a semi-automatic email about new static checker warnings.
The patch 7414a03fbf9e: "btrfs: initial readahead code and
prototypes" from May 23, 2011,
Hi, I'm working on some new Smatch code and it complains about this
patch from last year. -Dan
This is a semi-automatic email about new static checker warnings.
The patch 7414a03fbf9e: "btrfs: initial readahead code and
prototypes" from May 23, 2011, leads to the following Smatch
complaint
