reada is using -1 instead of the -ENOMEM defined macro to specify that
a buffer allocation failed. Since the error number is propagated, the
caller will get a -EPERM which is the wrong error condition.
Smatch tool warning:
reada_add_block() warn: returning -1 instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy
Signed-off-by: Luis de Bethencourt <luisbg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/btrfs/reada.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/reada.c b/fs/btrfs/reada.c
index 4645cd1..5bfd3cd 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/reada.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/reada.c
@@ -569,7 +569,7 @@ static int reada_add_block(struct reada_control *rc, u64 logical,
rec = kzalloc(sizeof(*rec), GFP_NOFS);
if (!rec) {
reada_extent_put(root->fs_info, re);
- return -1;
+ return -ENOMEM;
}
rec->rc = rc;
--
2.5.3
--
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
