> +++ b/drivers/staging/exfat/exfat_core.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,3704 @@
…
> +static s32 __load_upcase_table(struct super_block *sb, sector_t sector,
> + u32 num_sectors, u32 utbl_checksum)
> +{
…
> +error:
An other label would be nicer, wouldn't it?
> + if (tmp_bh)
> + brelse(tmp_bh);
This inline function tolerates the passing of null pointers.
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/linux/buffer_head.h?id=9cf6b756cdf2cd38b8b0dac2567f7c6daf5e79d5#n292
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.3-rc6/source/include/linux/buffer_head.h#L292
Thus I suggest to omit the extra pointer check at affected places.
> +++ b/drivers/staging/exfat/exfat_super.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,4137 @@
…
> +// FIXME use commented lines
> +// static int exfat_default_codepage = CONFIG_EXFAT_DEFAULT_CODEPAGE;
Is such information still relevant anyhow?
> +static int exfat_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
> +{
…
> +out_fail:
> + if (root_inode)
> + iput(root_inode);
I am informed in the way that this function tolerates the passing
of null pointers.
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/fs/inode.c?id=9cf6b756cdf2cd38b8b0dac2567f7c6daf5e79d5#n1564
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.3-rc6/source/fs/inode.c#L1564
Thus I suggest to omit the extra pointer check also at this place.
Regards,
Markus
