On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 09:26:15AM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
> > @@ -3380,6 +3382,10 @@ static int update_space_info(struct btrfs_fs_info *info, u64 flags,
> > if (!found)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > + ret = percpu_counter_init(&found->total_bytes_pinned, 0);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
>
> Leaks *found if percpu_counter_init() fails.
>
Right thanks.
> > - if (space_info->bytes_pinned + delayed_rsv->size < bytes) {
> > + bytes_pinned = percpu_counter_sum(&space_info->total_bytes_pinned);
> > + if (bytes_pinned + delayed_rsv->size < bytes) {
>
> This stood out as being different from the rest of the comparisons.
>
> Why manually sum the counters instead of letting _compare() optimize it
> away if it can? _compare(&, bytes - delayed_rsv->size)?
>
Cause negative numbers bother me?
Josef
--
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
