David Sterba wrote on 2016/01/12 11:17 +0100:
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 03:11:37PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
--- a/extent-tree.c
+++ b/extent-tree.c
+static int __btrfs_record_file_extent(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
+ struct btrfs_root *root, u64 objectid,
+ struct btrfs_inode_item *inode,
+ u64 file_pos, u64 disk_bytenr,
+ u64 *ret_num_bytes)
{
int ret;
struct btrfs_fs_info *info = root->fs_info;
...
@@ -3999,25 +4003,80 @@ int btrfs_record_file_extent(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
return ret;
}
- btrfs_init_path(&path);
+ path = btrfs_alloc_path();
+ if (!path)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
...
fail:
- btrfs_release_path(&path);
+ btrfs_release_path(path);
+ return ret;
Coverity correctly complains that path leaks here.
Oh, I should use btrfs_free_path().
Should I rebase the unmerged to patches to current devel and send it again?
Thanks,
Qu
--
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
--
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
