Hi, Mark,
(2011/07/22 4:48), Mark Fasheh wrote:
> In addition to properly handling allocation failure from btrfs_alloc_path, I
> also fixed up the kzalloc error handling code immediately below it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 8 ++++++--
> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> index ff339b2..4cf5257 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> @@ -6271,10 +6271,14 @@ int btrfs_drop_snapshot(struct btrfs_root *root,
> int level;
>
> path = btrfs_alloc_path();
> - BUG_ON(!path);
> + if (!path)
> + return -ENOMEM;
>
> wc = kzalloc(sizeof(*wc), GFP_NOFS);
> - BUG_ON(!wc);
> + if (!wc) {
> + btrfs_free_path(path);
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + }
>
> trans = btrfs_start_transaction(tree_root, 0);
> BUG_ON(IS_ERR(trans));
Currently, callers of btrfs_drop_snapshot() ignore the return code.
But btrfs_drop_snapshot() detects the error by BUG_ON.
The caller still ignore the return code though your modification returns
the error code to the caller.
So, we can not detect error. I don't think that it is good.
Thanks,
Tsutomu
--
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
