On 2016-11-01 at 11:26:06 +0100, Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 'btrfs_iget()' can not return an error pointer, so this test can be
> removed.
This descrption does not match what the patch actually does. Shouldn't
it say "...can not return NULL, so this test can be removed."?
> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c | 2 --
> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c b/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c
> index e4b48f377d3a..afd8b0c10acd 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c
> @@ -75,8 +75,6 @@ static struct inode *__lookup_free_space_inode(struct btrfs_root *root,
> btrfs_release_path(path);
>
> inode = btrfs_iget(root->fs_info->sb, &location, root, NULL);
> - if (!inode)
> - return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> if (IS_ERR(inode))
> return inode;
> if (is_bad_inode(inode)) {
> --
> 2.9.3
>
> --
> 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
>
--
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
