btrfs: check-integrity: Fix returned errno codes

check-integrity is using -1 instead of the -ENOMEM defined macro to
specify that a buffer allocation failed. Since the error number is
propagated, the caller will get a -EPERM which is the wrong error
condition.

Also, the smatch tool complains with the following warnings:
btrfsic_process_superblock() warn: returning -1 instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy
btrfsic_read_block() warn: returning -1 instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy

Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Luis de Bethencourt <luisbg@osg.samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c b/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
index 541fbfa..9cacd06 100644 (file)
--- a/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
@@ -667,7 +667,7 @@ static int btrfsic_process_superblock(struct btrfsic_state *state,
        selected_super = kzalloc(sizeof(*selected_super), GFP_NOFS);
        if (NULL == selected_super) {
                printk(KERN_INFO "btrfsic: error, kmalloc failed!\n");
-               return -1;
+               return -ENOMEM;
        }
 
        list_for_each_entry(device, dev_head, dev_list) {
@@ -1660,7 +1660,7 @@ static int btrfsic_read_block(struct btrfsic_state *state,
                                          sizeof(*block_ctx->pagev)) *
                                         num_pages, GFP_NOFS);
        if (!block_ctx->mem_to_free)
-               return -1;
+               return -ENOMEM;
        block_ctx->datav = block_ctx->mem_to_free;
        block_ctx->pagev = (struct page **)(block_ctx->datav + num_pages);
        for (i = 0; i < num_pages; i++) {