From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:57:42 +0300
Subject: [Cluster-devel] GFS2: Move most of the remaining inode.c into
	ops_inode.c
In-Reply-To: <54C3FE63.7040906@redhat.com>
References: <20150124194503.GA22383@mwanda>
 <54C3FE63.7040906@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20150126075742.GT6507@mwanda>
List-Id: <cluster-devel.redhat.com>
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 08:19:47PM +0000, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 24/01/15 19:45, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >Hello Steven Whitehouse,
> >
> >The [some really old patch], leads to the following static checker
> >warning:
> >
> >	fs/gfs2/inode.c:203 gfs2_inode_lookup()
> >	error: passing non negative 13 to ERR_PTR
> >
> >fs/gfs2/inode.c
> >    167                  set_bit(GIF_INVALID, &ip->i_flags);
> >    168                  error = gfs2_glock_nq_init(io_gl, LM_ST_SHARED, GL_EXACT, &ip->i_iopen_gh);
> >                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >It looks like this function can return GLR_TRYFAILED.  The caller is
> >only expecting normal ERR_PTRs so it could cause an oops.
> This does not request a try lock, so it should never return the
> GLR_TRYFAILED value. I think the checker is perhaps not following
> the code well enough to figure that out?

Ooo..  Yes.  That's too tricky for the static checker.  Thanks for
looking into this.

regards,
dan carpenter