6.6-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Dan Carpenter [ Upstream commit b8212814d1e8428a082234223105e4071b844fab ] It's more obvious to return a literal zero instead of "return ret;". Plus Smatch complains that ret could be uninitialized if the ordered_extent->bioc_list list is empty and this silences that warning. Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter Reviewed-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: David Sterba Stable-dep-of: afbe73778338 ("btrfs: fix the possible bioc_list memory leak during error") Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin --- fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c index 38917236bbb95..7fe5adce9a100 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c @@ -82,5 +82,5 @@ int btrfs_insert_raid_extent(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, btrfs_put_bioc(bioc); } - return ret; + return 0; } -- 2.53.0