Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sun, 11 Dec 2022 22:42:26 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>
Cc:     Evgeniy Dushistov <dushistov@mail.ru>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] fs/ufs: Change the signature of ufs_get_page()
Message-ID: <Y5Zc0qZ3+zsI74OZ@ZenIV>
References: <20221211213111.30085-1-fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>
 <20221211213111.30085-3-fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221211213111.30085-3-fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 10:31:10PM +0100, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
>  out_put:
>  	ufs_put_page(page);
> -out:
> -	return err;
>  out_unlock:
>  	unlock_page(page);
>  	goto out_put;

Something strange has happened, all right - look at the situation
after that patch.  You've got

out_put:
	ufs_put_page(page);
out_unlock:
	unlock_page(page);
	goto out_put;

Which is obviously bogus.