On 2019/1/3 12:31 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 07:28:40PM +0800, Su Yue wrote:
+}
+
+int create_uuid_tree(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans)
+{
+ struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = trans->fs_info;
+ struct btrfs_root *uuid_root = fs_info->uuid_root;
+ struct btrfs_key key;
+ int ret;
+
+ if (!uuid_root) {
+ ret = create_empty_tree(trans, BTRFS_UUID_TREE_OBJECTID);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ errno = -ret;
+ error("failed to create uuid root: %m");
In personal taste, I don't like such assignment.
Let the community say.
Check eg. 251d32ea5cd1cf74cb52, replaces strerror(errno) with %m and
requires no change. As we're using strerror(-ret) in many places, it's a
followup that needs the extra errno assignment. This is IMO a small cost
on the source code size and the gain in space savings might be
noticeable for embedded devices, but we need to do all the conversions.
Got it, Thanks.
