On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:01:11AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 05:17:15PM +0100, Eric Engestrom wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <eric.engest...@imgtec.com> > > --- > > fs/debugfs/file.c | 3 +-- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/debugfs/file.c b/fs/debugfs/file.c > > index 592059f..04eca0b 100644 > > --- a/fs/debugfs/file.c > > +++ b/fs/debugfs/file.c > > @@ -195,7 +195,6 @@ static int full_proxy_release(struct inode *inode, > > struct file *filp) > > const struct dentry *dentry = F_DENTRY(filp); > > const struct file_operations *real_fops = REAL_FOPS_DEREF(dentry); > > const struct file_operations *proxy_fops = filp->f_op; > > - int r = 0; > > > > /* > > * We must not protect this against removal races here: the > > @@ -204,7 +203,7 @@ static int full_proxy_release(struct inode *inode, > > struct file *filp) > > * ->i_private is still being meaningful here. > > */ > > if (real_fops->release) > > - r = real_fops->release(inode, filp); > > + real_fops->release(inode, filp); > > Hm, shouldn't we be propagating the result back up the call chain?
You're right, sorry, I wasn't thinking. Correct fix incoming :) Cheers, Eric > > thanks, > > greg k-h
