On 7/25/20 11:48 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
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.
I see. At this point in the attr process, if this error happens, I would
call it "a programming mistake" of sorts. This condition of the attr
already existing is handled much earlier in the code, so this error code
path really shouldn't ever execute at this point unless something weird
happened.
Should I have both the assert and the error handling for the compiler
warning? I wasn't really sure how concerned people actually were about
the warnings. It's not really that the variable is unused, it's just
only used for the assert.
Thanks!
Allison
Thanks,
-Eric
