On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 11:01:56AM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 2:45 AM, Dan Carpenter <error27@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > "old_inode" cannot be null here, because we dereference it
> > unconditionally throughout the function.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> > index fa6ccc1..0bc29be 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> > @@ -6487,10 +6487,8 @@ static int btrfs_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry,
> > * make sure the inode gets flushed if it is replacing
> > * something.
> > */
> > - if (new_inode && new_inode->i_size &&
> > - old_inode && S_ISREG(old_inode->i_mode)) {
> > + if (new_inode && new_inode->i_size && S_ISREG(old_inode->i_mode))
> > btrfs_add_ordered_operation(trans, root, old_inode);
> > - }
>
> I think code like this is here because there are still a lot of
> features that are being added to btrfs and it's easier to have the
> additional checks than continually adding and removing them as the
> code changes.
Right right. I understand about extra checks and api changes. But in
this case that doesn't aply. There is no way this particular check helps
now or in the future, and it just wastes time when someone is auditing
for inconsistent null checking.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
