On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 05:03:52PM +0800, Jeff Liu wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I'm not sure if someone else has also noticed the following reports from Coverity.
yup, saw it - it not a regression from a recent checkin, so it must
some new check they've added to Coverity. However, i ignored it
because it looked completely bogus....
> It seems like a false alarm, but maybe we can just remove the out0 label as below?
Yup, it must be getting confused with the assignment of *stat = 0
after checking that it is already zero...
> From: Jie Liu <jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: xfs: get rid of out0 goto label from xfs_btree_new_root
>
> Get rid of the useless out0 goto label and return 0 directly in case
> of falling to alloate the new block.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jie Liu <jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/xfs/xfs_btree.c | 11 +++++------
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_btree.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_btree.c
> index 182bac2..f162dc9 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_btree.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_btree.c
> @@ -2653,8 +2653,11 @@ xfs_btree_new_root(
> error = cur->bc_ops->alloc_block(cur, &rptr, &lptr, stat);
> if (error)
> goto error0;
> - if (*stat == 0)
> - goto out0;
> + if (*stat == 0) {
> + XFS_BTREE_TRACE_CURSOR(cur, XBT_EXIT);
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> XFS_BTREE_STATS_INC(cur, alloc);
>
> /* Set up the new block. */
> @@ -2743,10 +2746,6 @@ xfs_btree_new_root(
> error0:
> XFS_BTREE_TRACE_CURSOR(cur, XBT_ERROR);
> return error;
> -out0:
> - XFS_BTREE_TRACE_CURSOR(cur, XBT_EXIT);
> - *stat = 0;
> - return 0;
> }
Looks fine. It's not obviously a problem, so I'll queue it up for
after then 3.2.0 release.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
