I also removed the BUG_ON from error return of find_next_chunk in init_first_rw_device(). It turns out that the only caller of init_first_rw_device() also BUGS on any nonzero return so no actual behavior change has occurred here. Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@xxxxxxxx> --- fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 6 ++++-- 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c index 530a2fc..90d956c 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c @@ -1037,7 +1037,8 @@ static noinline int find_next_chunk(struct btrfs_root *root, struct btrfs_key found_key; path = btrfs_alloc_path(); - BUG_ON(!path); + if (!path) + return -ENOMEM; key.objectid = objectid; key.offset = (u64)-1; @@ -2663,7 +2664,8 @@ static noinline int init_first_rw_device(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, ret = find_next_chunk(fs_info->chunk_root, BTRFS_FIRST_CHUNK_TREE_OBJECTID, &chunk_offset); - BUG_ON(ret); + if (ret) + return ret; alloc_profile = BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_METADATA | (fs_info->metadata_alloc_profile & -- 1.7.5.3 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
