On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 4:55 PM Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> - if (unlikely(negative))
> + if (unlikely(!inode))
> return -ENOENT;
Isn't that buggy?
Despite the name, 'inode' isn't an inode pointer. It's a pointer to
the return location.
I think the test should be
if (unlikely(!*inode))
return -ENOENT;
and I also suspect that the argument name should be fixed (maybe
"inodepp", maybe something better).
Because the "inode" pointer itself always exists. The callers will
have something like
struct inode *inode;
and then pass in "&inode" to the function.
And it's possible that I'm talking complete garbage.
Linus
