From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> Apparently, gcc 10.2 thinks that it's possible for either of the calloc arguments to be zero here, in which case it will return NULL with a zero errno. I suppose it's possible to do that via integer overflow in the macro, though I find it unlikely unless someone passes in a yuuuge value. Nevertheless, just shut up the warning by hardcoding the error number so I can move on to nastier bugs. Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> --- libfrog/bulkstat.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/libfrog/bulkstat.c b/libfrog/bulkstat.c index c3e5c5f804e4..195f6ea053bd 100644 --- a/libfrog/bulkstat.c +++ b/libfrog/bulkstat.c @@ -428,7 +428,7 @@ xfrog_bulkstat_alloc_req( breq = calloc(1, XFS_BULKSTAT_REQ_SIZE(nr)); if (!breq) - return -errno; + return -ENOMEM; breq->hdr.icount = nr; breq->hdr.ino = startino;
