Commit 0b8d8ce0 authored by Luis de Bethencourt's avatar Luis de Bethencourt Committed by David Sterba

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: default avatarDavid Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarLuis de Bethencourt <luisbg@osg.samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
parent d9187649
......@@ -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++) {
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment