On Monday 07 Oct 2013 2:43:01 PM you wrote:
> This was found by static analysis.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zach Brown <zab@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> cmds-check.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/cmds-check.c b/cmds-check.c
> index ebba58e..b6035d7 100644
> --- a/cmds-check.c
> +++ b/cmds-check.c
> @@ -3228,13 +3228,13 @@ static int verify_space_cache(struct btrfs_root *root,
>
> ret = btrfs_search_slot(NULL, root, &key, path, 0, 0);
> if (ret < 0)
> - return ret;
> + goto out;
> ret = 0;
> while (1) {
> if (path->slots[0] >= btrfs_header_nritems(path->nodes[0])) {
> ret = btrfs_next_leaf(root, path);
> if (ret < 0)
> - return ret;
> + goto out;
> if (ret > 0) {
> ret = 0;
> break;
> @@ -3274,6 +3274,8 @@ static int verify_space_cache(struct btrfs_root *root,
> ret = check_cache_range(root, cache, last,
> cache->key.objectid +
> cache->key.offset - last);
> +
> +out:
> btrfs_free_path(path);
>
> if (!ret &&
>
This has been fixed by commit 7ae60bf1. But I feel that your fix is
better since the clean up code is segregated to one place and hence we
have fewer places in the function where we return from.
Reviewed-by: chandan <chandan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
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
