From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carlos Maiolino Subject: Re: [v2] ext4: fix possible non-initialized variable Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:10:57 -0300 Message-ID: <20120919201057.GA23237@andromeda.usersys.redhat.com> References: <1347314148-17463-1-git-send-email-cmaiolino@redhat.com> <20120915183023.GA9895@thunk.org> <505739F8.9050305@redhat.com> <50574226.3020908@redhat.com> <20120917153701.GA5510@thunk.org> <20120917182604.GA1959@andromeda.usersys.redhat.com> <20120918035931.GB32195@thunk.org> <20120918125155.GA30408@andromeda.usersys.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:45462 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751454Ab2ISULD (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:11:03 -0400 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8JKB3bh007018 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:11:03 -0400 Received: from andromeda.usersys.redhat.com (vpn1-7-46.gru2.redhat.com [10.97.7.46]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8JKAwxX023064 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:11:02 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120918125155.GA30408@andromeda.usersys.redhat.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > > OK, I've applied this patch to my tree. However, I would really > > appreciate if you could indeed review the callers for ext4_bread() and > > ext3_bread() and send patches for ext3 and ext4 as you have suggested, > > thanks!! > > > On my todo list. > > - Ted Ted, In case of ext4_add_entry() I'm supposing to make the function call ext4_error() and return -EIO in the case where ext4_bread() returns NULL and err is 0'ed, does that matches with your thoughts or is there a better way to handle with this? I'm talking about ext4_add_entry() behavious mainly as an example to better understand how we should handle these situations. In case of ext4_add_entry(), based on our discussions ext4_bread() should not fail once dir entries should not have HOLES, so, a NULL return should indicate a on-disk corruption or an I/O error. Does that makes sense? -- --Carlos