On 25 Jun 2018, at 9:54, David Sterba wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 06:45:32AM -0700, Chris Mason wrote:
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
>> index 193f933..38403aa 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
>> @@ -9013,6 +9013,7 @@ vm_fault_t btrfs_page_mkwrite(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>> goto out_unlock;
>> }
>> ret2 = 0;
>> + ret = 0;
>
> That's something I'd rather avoid, now there are two error values that
> need to be tracked. Shouldn't the 'ret2 = 0' be removed completely?
Yeah, the whole thing hurts my eyes. Fixing.
>
>>
>> /* page is wholly or partially inside EOF */
>> if (page_start + PAGE_SIZE > size)
>> @@ -9037,7 +9038,7 @@ vm_fault_t btrfs_page_mkwrite(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>> unlock_extent_cached(io_tree, page_start, page_end, &cached_state);
>>
>> out_unlock:
>> - if (!ret2) {
>> + if (!ret) {
>
> I'm not sure is safe, the new ret is one of the VM_FAULT_ values and
> it's not 0 by default and in fact I don't see anything that would set it
> to 0 directly or indirectly. Which means that the code in the out: label
> also needs to be revisited:
Good point, ok.
-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
