From 0b8d8ce0297c4376d50318692e0aa53a3aaed90c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luis de Bethencourt Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:56:22 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: check-integrity: Fix returned errno codes check-integrity is using -1 instead of the -ENOMEM defined macro to specify that a buffer allocation failed. Since the error number is propagated, the caller will get a -EPERM which is the wrong error condition. Also, the smatch tool complains with the following warnings: btrfsic_process_superblock() warn: returning -1 instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy btrfsic_read_block() warn: returning -1 instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy Reviewed-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: Luis de Bethencourt Signed-off-by: David Sterba --- fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c b/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c index 541fbfaed276..9cacd06cede4 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c @@ -667,7 +667,7 @@ static int btrfsic_process_superblock(struct btrfsic_state *state, selected_super = kzalloc(sizeof(*selected_super), GFP_NOFS); if (NULL == selected_super) { printk(KERN_INFO "btrfsic: error, kmalloc failed!\n"); - return -1; + return -ENOMEM; } list_for_each_entry(device, dev_head, dev_list) { @@ -1660,7 +1660,7 @@ static int btrfsic_read_block(struct btrfsic_state *state, sizeof(*block_ctx->pagev)) * num_pages, GFP_NOFS); if (!block_ctx->mem_to_free) - return -1; + return -ENOMEM; block_ctx->datav = block_ctx->mem_to_free; block_ctx->pagev = (struct page **)(block_ctx->datav + num_pages); for (i = 0; i < num_pages; i++) { -- 2.20.1