This issue was not causing any harm but IMO (and in the opinion of the
static code checker) it is better to propagate this error status upwards.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Behrens <sbehr...@giantdisaster.de>
Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpen...@oracle.com>
---
fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c b/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
index 39bfd56a1f26..26f6d34a135b 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
@@ -1093,6 +1093,7 @@ leaf_item_out_of_bounce_error:
next_stack =
btrfsic_stack_frame_alloc();
if (NULL == next_stack) {
+ sf->error = -1;
btrfsic_release_block_ctx(
&sf->
next_block_ctx);
@@ -1190,8 +1191,10 @@ continue_with_current_node_stack_frame:
sf->next_block_ctx.datav[0];
next_stack = btrfsic_stack_frame_alloc();
- if (NULL == next_stack)
+ if (NULL == next_stack) {
+ sf->error = -1;
goto one_stack_frame_backwards;
+ }
next_stack->i = -1;
next_stack->block = sf->next_block;
--
1.9.2
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
