From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Carpenter Subject: Re: [PATCH] Check for Null return of function of affs_bread in function affs_truncate Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 18:05:17 +0300 Message-ID: <20140711150516.GR23001@mwanda> References: <1403129285-5038-1-git-send-email-xerofoify@gmail.com> <20140619052128.GV5015@mwanda> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Nick Krause , akpm@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, fabf@skynet.be, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Gleixner Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org 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 wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 06:08:05PM -0400, Nicholas Krause wrote: > > >> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause > > >> --- > > >> 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