NeilBrown [off-list ref] writes:
On Thu, Mar 10 2016, Jes Sorensen wrote:
quoted
Guoqing Jiang [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On 03/09/2016 01:30 AM, Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com wrote:
quoted
@@ -297,7 +297,14 @@ int Grow_addbitmap(char *devname, int fd, struct context *c, struct shape *s)
" between different architectures. Consider upgrading the Linux kernel.\n");
}
- if (s->bitmap_file && strcmp(s->bitmap_file, "clustered") ==
0)
+ /*
+ * We only ever get called if s->bitmap_file is != NULL, so this check
+ * is just here to quiet down static code checkers.
+ */
+ if (!s->bitmap_file)
+ return 1;
Is it really need to make all static code checkers happy? ;-)
Otherwise, I would prefer remove above check.
Anyway, I am fine with the changes.
We had a check in one place, but not in the remaining places. I just
made it more consistent.
I wonder if maybe the checker was only complaining because the code
was inconsistent. i.e. if we just got rid of the existing test on
s->bitmap_file, maybe that would make the checker happy. It would be
interesting to experiment even if you ultimately decide to leave the
new test there.
I went back and checked the scan logs and it basically complained about
all the cases that didn't check the validity of s->bitmap_file. I think
it's safer to just have the one check at the top, even if we expect it
never to be called with an invalid pointer.
Cheers,
Jes