On 10/7/20 10:57 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > 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; Sure, why not! Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> > breq->hdr.icount = nr; > breq->hdr.ino = startino; >
