On 5/7/25 15:31, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 10:59:11AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 5/2/25 16:15, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>> Hello Matthew Wilcox (Oracle),
>>>
>>> 1768 /* reference all summary page */
>>> 1769 while (segno < end_segno) {
>>> 1770 struct folio *sum_folio = f2fs_get_sum_folio(sbi,
>>> segno++);
>>
>>>
>>> One time email warning etc. I could also mark filemap_get_folio() as
>>> a no fail function to prevent false positives.
>>
>> So, it doesn't mean filemap_get_folio() never fail, can Smatch detect above
>> condition to avoid triggering warning?
>>
>
> Thanks for looking at this!
>
> I tend to not worry about false positives a lot. Only warnings in new
> code should be considered as real, everything old is something that we
> have reviewed and ignored. If people have questions they can look it up
> on lore.
Ah, above implementation (not checking return valud of f2fs_get_sum_page) exists
for a long time, for such old code, Smatch didn't complain.
It matches what you explained. ;-)
Thanks,
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
