Hello Theodore Ts'o,
The patch 202ee5df38b3: "ext4: add a new spinlock i_raw_lock to
protect the ext4's raw inode" from Apr 21, 2014, leads to the
following static checker warning:
fs/ext4/inode.c:4359 ext4_do_update_inode()
warn: we tested 'err' before and it was 'false'
fs/ext4/inode.c
4351 ext4_inode_csum_set(inode, raw_inode, ei);
4352 spin_unlock(&ei->i_raw_lock);
4353 if (inode->i_sb->s_flags & MS_LAZYTIME)
4354 ext4_update_other_inodes_time(inode->i_sb, inode->i_ino,
4355 bh->b_data);
4356
4357 BUFFER_TRACE(bh, "call ext4_handle_dirty_metadata");
4358 rc = ext4_handle_dirty_metadata(handle, NULL, bh);
4359 if (!err)
4360 err = rc;
That patch shifted things around so now we can just say:
err = ext4_handle_dirty_metadata(handle, NULL, bh);
But my only concern is that should we check the error code?
4361 ext4_clear_inode_state(inode, EXT4_STATE_NEW);
4362 if (set_large_file) {
4363 BUFFER_TRACE(EXT4_SB(sb)->s_sbh, "get write access");
4364 err = ext4_journal_get_write_access(handle, EXT4_SB(sb)->s_sbh);
^^^
We overwrite it if set_large_file is true.
4365 if (err)
4366 goto out_brelse;
4367 ext4_update_dynamic_rev(sb);
4368 EXT4_SET_RO_COMPAT_FEATURE(sb,
4369 EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_LARGE_FILE);
4370 ext4_handle_sync(handle);
4371 err = ext4_handle_dirty_super(handle, sb);
4372 }
4373 ext4_update_inode_fsync_trans(handle, inode, need_datasync);
4374 out_brelse:
4375 brelse(bh);
4376 ext4_std_error(inode->i_sb, err);
4377 return err;
4378 }
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
