On 7/25/20 4:01 PM, Allison Collins wrote: > @@ -730,7 +730,8 @@ xfs_attr_shortform_add( > ASSERT(ifp->if_flags & XFS_IFINLINE); > sf = (xfs_attr_shortform_t *)ifp->if_u1.if_data; > error = xfs_attr_sf_findname(args, &sfe, NULL); > - ASSERT(error != -EEXIST); > + if (error == -EEXIST) > + return error; > > offset = (char *)sfe - (char *)sf; > size = XFS_ATTR_SF_ENTSIZE_BYNAME(args->namelen, args->valuelen); ASSERTs are normally "this cannot happen unless somebody made a programming mistake," not an error that can actually happen in normal use. So now it's being handled as a normal error. (here and in other places in these patches) Is -EEXIST an error that should be handled, or if we get it does that indicate that somebody made a coding mistake? I ask because "fix compiler warnings" don't usually turn into "add a bunch of new error handling" so ... some extra explanation would be helpful for these changes. Thanks, -Eric
