On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 04:33:52PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > No functional change, bring the clone of fs_devices and its > operations closer, so that it indicates its purpose. > > Also add a comment to indicate why we clone the fs_devices. > > Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <[email protected]> > --- > fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 13 ++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > index b63aae267ebe..0e92969b1adc 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > @@ -2276,18 +2276,21 @@ static int btrfs_prepare_sprout(struct btrfs_fs_info > *fs_info) > if (!fs_devices->seeding) > return -EINVAL; > > - seed_devices = alloc_fs_devices(NULL); > - if (IS_ERR(seed_devices)) > - return PTR_ERR(seed_devices); > - > + /* > + * This step ensures the scanned seed device remains scanned, > + * its not a must for the sprout operation though. > + */ > old_devices = clone_fs_devices(fs_devices); > if (IS_ERR(old_devices)) { > kfree(seed_devices);
seed_devices is uninitialized here. > return PTR_ERR(old_devices); > } > - > list_add(&old_devices->fs_list, &fs_uuids); > > + seed_devices = alloc_fs_devices(NULL); > + if (IS_ERR(seed_devices)) > + return PTR_ERR(seed_devices); If this fails, is it ok to leave the old_devices in the list? I think it would be better to do all the allocations first and then do the rest so the error handling is a bit simpler. > + > memcpy(seed_devices, fs_devices, sizeof(*seed_devices)); > seed_devices->opened = 1; > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&seed_devices->devices); > -- > 2.7.0 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to [email protected] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
