Guoqing Jiang <gqjiang@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On 03/09/2016 01:30 AM, Jes.Sorensen@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> From: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Grow_addbitmap() is only ever called with s->bitmap_file != NULL, but >> not all static code checkers catch this. This adds a check to quiet >> down the false positive warnings. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> Grow.c | 9 ++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/Grow.c b/Grow.c >> index 0fa776d..c453eb6 100755 >> --- a/Grow.c >> +++ b/Grow.c >> @@ -297,7 +297,14 @@ int Grow_addbitmap(char *devname, int fd, struct context *c, struct shape *s) >> " between different architectures. Consider upgrading the Linux kernel.\n"); >> } >> - if (s->bitmap_file && strcmp(s->bitmap_file, "clustered") == >> 0) >> + /* >> + * We only ever get called if s->bitmap_file is != NULL, so this check >> + * is just here to quiet down static code checkers. >> + */ >> + if (!s->bitmap_file) >> + return 1; > > Is it really need to make all static code checkers happy? ;-) > Otherwise, I would prefer remove above check. > > Anyway, I am fine with the changes. We had a check in one place, but not in the remaining places. I just made it more consistent. Making the code checker happy does make some sense because it finds valid bugs too, and they are easier to find when we don't get a lot of false warnings. Thanks for your review :) Cheers, Jes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
