On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 08:20:47PM -0500, Nicholas Krause wrote: > This fixes the incorrect return statement if failure occurs by > returning 0 rather then the variable ret which may hold a error > code to signal when a failure has occurred in the function > btrfs_mark_extent_written to its callers rather then always > making this function appear to run successfully to its callers > by always returning zero. > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/btrfs/file.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/file.c b/fs/btrfs/file.c > index b823fac..7a9ab8e 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/file.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/file.c > @@ -1276,7 +1276,7 @@ again: > } > out: > btrfs_free_path(path); > - return 0; > + return ret; > } We're checking ret higher up and aborting the transaction properly. There is at least one place ret will be non-zero above that isn't an error, but you're passing it to the caller here making them think it has gone wrong. -chris -- 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
