<snip>
> On 03/29/13 14:42, Wang Shilong wrote:
>> From: Wang Shilong <wangsl-fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Just remove the unnecessary check and assignment.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl-fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/btrfs/backref.c | 3 +--
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
>> index 3ca413bb..e102b48 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/backref.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
>> @@ -1499,7 +1499,7 @@ int iterate_extent_inodes(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
>> if (ret)
>> break;
>> ULIST_ITER_INIT(&root_uiter);
>> - while (!ret && (root_node = ulist_next(roots, &root_uiter))) {
>> + while ((root_node = ulist_next(roots, &root_uiter))) {
>
> It doesn't look unnecessary at all to me. ret is set in the loop and
> only checked in the while condition.
>
>> pr_debug("root %llu references leaf %llu, data list "
>> "%#llx\n", root_node->val, ref_node->val,
>> (long long)ref_node->aux);
>> @@ -1510,7 +1510,6 @@ int iterate_extent_inodes(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
>> iterate, ctx);
>> }
>> ulist_free(roots);
>> - roots = NULL;
>
> roots gets freed again later on. If you don't set it to NULL, it will
> result in a double free.
Maybe you mean this?
http://marc.info/?l=linux-btrfs&m=136456233929528&w=2
ulist_free() here is unnecessary and may cause a double free…
So we don't need to set it to NULL again..
>
> -Arne
>
>> }
>>
>> free_leaf_list(refs);
>>
>
--
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
