From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S968855AbdEWWa2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 May 2017 18:30:28 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:34566 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S968771AbdEWWaZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 May 2017 18:30:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 15:30:23 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Gang He Cc: mfasheh@versity.com, jlbec@evilplan.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ocfs2: fix a static checker warning Message-Id: <20170523153023.9831db2fd6d5403445509cf3@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <1495516634-1952-1-git-send-email-ghe@suse.com> References: <1495516634-1952-1-git-send-email-ghe@suse.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.4.1 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 23 May 2017 13:17:14 +0800 Gang He wrote: > This patch will fix a static code checker warning, which looks > like below, > fs/ocfs2/inode.c:179 ocfs2_iget() > warn: passing zero to 'ERR_PTR' > > this warning was caused by the > commit d56a8f32e4c6 ("ocfs2: check/fix inode block for online file check"). > after apply this patch, the error return value will not be NULL(zero). > > Signed-off-by: Gang He > --- > fs/ocfs2/inode.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/inode.c b/fs/ocfs2/inode.c > index 382401d..1a1e007 100644 > --- a/fs/ocfs2/inode.c > +++ b/fs/ocfs2/inode.c > @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ struct inode *ocfs2_ilookup(struct super_block *sb, u64 blkno) > struct inode *ocfs2_iget(struct ocfs2_super *osb, u64 blkno, unsigned flags, > int sysfile_type) > { > - int rc = 0; > + int rc = -ESTALE; > struct inode *inode = NULL; > struct super_block *sb = osb->sb; > struct ocfs2_find_inode_args args; hm, OK, thanks. The resulting code still looks rather weird. Could someone who works in this area please take a look?