btrfs: reada: Fix returned errno code (ddd664f4) · Commits · 戴 / test

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 Reviewed-by:

David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by:

Luis de Bethencourt <luisbg@osg.samsung.com> Signed-off-by:

David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>

fs/btrfs/reada.c

+5 −3

Original line number	Diff line number	Diff line
		@@ -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);

Admin message