Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfs_repair: distinguish true ENOMEM from "not found" in cache_node_get

[Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>]

On 8/25/26 10:49 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 10:39:08AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:

...

>>>  Also,
>>> maybe we should be "return -ENOMEM" here or something?
>>
>> Then have callers check, etc. Do you want me to rework things to rationalize
>> the return values (and caller checks?)
> 
> Yeah, I think __cache_lookup should do something with the new return
> codes, e.g.
> 
> 	int ret = cache_node_get(bcache, key, &cn);
> 	if (ret < 0) {
> 		fprintf(stderr,
> 			"%s occurred, go buy a real computer!\n",
> 			strerror(-ret));
> 		abort();
> 	}
> 	if (!cn)
> 		return -ENOMEM;
> 	bp = container_of(cn, struct xfs_buf, b_node);
> 
> This can be a third patch, the first two patches look good to me aside
> from having weird SoB lines.
Fair enough, I was staying in the weird "we have distinct error codes that
are never checked" world and should have fixed that up at the same time,
for tidiness.

-Eric