Oh... Crap. I suck. Sorry, ignore this patch. It's buggy as well. I'm so really really sorry. regards, dan carpenter On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:06:44AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > We check "outarg->nodeid" twice in a row and it causes a static checker > warning. We should return success if "outarg->nodeid" is zero so the > first check is correct and the second one should be deleted. > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > v2: The first version of this patch introduced a bug into working code. > (returning error instead of success). Sorry. :( > > diff --git a/fs/fuse/dir.c b/fs/fuse/dir.c > index 5e2e087..56a3463 100644 > --- a/fs/fuse/dir.c > +++ b/fs/fuse/dir.c > @@ -306,11 +306,10 @@ int fuse_lookup_name(struct super_block *sb, u64 nodeid, struct qstr *name, > > fuse_lookup_init(fc, &args, nodeid, name, outarg); > err = fuse_simple_request(fc, &args); > - /* Zero nodeid is same as -ENOENT, but with valid timeout */ > - if (err || !outarg->nodeid) > + if (err) > goto out_put_forget; > > - err = -EIO; > + /* Zero nodeid is same as -ENOENT, but with valid timeout */ > if (!outarg->nodeid) > goto out_put_forget; > if (!fuse_valid_type(outarg->attr.mode)) -- 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
