On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Dan Carpenter
<dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 01:59:15AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2014, Nick Krause wrote:
>>
>> > Ok that's fine I would return as if it's a NULL the other parts of the
>> > function can't continue.
>> > Nick
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 06:08:05PM -0400, Nicholas Krause wrote:
>> > >> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > >> ---
>> > >> fs/affs/file.c | 2 ++
>> > >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>> > >>
>> > >> diff --git a/fs/affs/file.c b/fs/affs/file.c
>> > >> index a7fe57d..f26482d 100644
>> > >> --- a/fs/affs/file.c
>> > >> +++ b/fs/affs/file.c
>> > >> @@ -923,6 +923,8 @@ affs_truncate(struct inode *inode)
>> > >>
>> > >> while (ext_key) {
>> > >> ext_bh = affs_bread(sb, ext_key);
>> > >> + if (!ext_bh)
>> > >> + return;
>> > >
>> > > The problem is that we don't know if we should return here or break
>> > > here. If you don't understand the code, then it's best to just leave it
>> > > alone.
>>
>> Dan, what kind of attitude is that?
>
> I'm just catching up on email after being offline for a while.
>
> I apologize that my email came off ruder than intended.
>
> I just meant that as a general rule, sometimes you should leave the
> static checker warning there if you aren't sure what the correct fix is.
> Even when it's a real bug, don't just guess at it, you have to be sure.
> Otherwise you just create a more subtle bug that the static checker
> can't detect.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
Hey Dan,
I am pretty sure this is correct as affs_bread does not check for NULL
and I am checking
the return of this function. If you feel this patch is wrong and would
like me to rewrite it.
Cheers Nick
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
