Re: [PATCH] Check for Null return of function of affs_bread in function affs_truncate

[Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>]

On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 01:59:15AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2014, Nick Krause wrote:
> 
> > Ok that's fine I would return as if it's a NULL the other parts of the
> > function can't continue.
> > Nick
> > 
> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 06:08:05PM -0400, Nicholas Krause wrote:
> > >> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com>
> > >> ---
> > >>  fs/affs/file.c | 2 ++
> > >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/fs/affs/file.c b/fs/affs/file.c
> > >> index a7fe57d..f26482d 100644
> > >> --- a/fs/affs/file.c
> > >> +++ b/fs/affs/file.c
> > >> @@ -923,6 +923,8 @@ affs_truncate(struct inode *inode)
> > >>
> > >>       while (ext_key) {
> > >>               ext_bh = affs_bread(sb, ext_key);
> > >> +             if (!ext_bh)
> > >> +                     return;
> > >
> > > The problem is that we don't know if we should return here or break
> > > here.  If you don't understand the code, then it's best to just leave it
> > > alone.
> 
> Dan, what kind of attitude is that?

I'm just catching up on email after being offline for a while.

I apologize that my email came off ruder than intended.

I just meant that as a general rule, sometimes you should leave the
static checker warning there if you aren't sure what the correct fix is.
Even when it's a real bug, don't just guess at it, you have to be sure.
Otherwise you just create a more subtle bug that the static checker
can't detect.

regards,
dan carpenter