On Dec 19, 2007 9:22 AM, David Howells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > - inode = ERR_PTR(ret); > > > + return NULL; > > > } else { > > > unlock_new_inode(inode); > > > } > > > > > > > Yup. > > Nope. The correct fix is to make the various callers use IS_ERR() to check > the result of this function rather than checking for a NULL return. > > > David, this is concerning. More such error-path bugs in that code will take > > years and years to get found and fixed. > > Yes, I know. I've looked over the patches several times, however I know there > may be bugs in there because I may have made assumptions about what I've > written that cause me to overlook things. It's a danger of checking your own > code:-( > > > The best way to eliminate them is a line-by-line re-review of the patchset. > > And ideally by someone other than me. Some of them have been reviewed by > other people, but I'm not sure that all have. > > However, I've just had another look through. ISOFS appears to be the only one > in which I'd missed updating the callers. I've sent you a patch for it. > > Note that I expressed reservations about three filesystems in the cover note > (FAT, HPPFS and HOSTFS), but nothing seems to have come of it. > Hi,
The oops is at iput, I use 'return NULL ' is because I don't want to change the the behaviour of iput in fs/inode.c. Regards dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/