[PATCH 2/2] btrfs: return proper negative error code for update_raid_extent_item()

The function btrfs_abort_transaction() only accepts negative error code,
and have the macro VERIFY_NEGATIVE_ERROR() to verify that error code.

But inside update_raid_extent_item(), if there is such key found, we
return 1, breaking the negative error code scheme.

Furthermore if we hit some real error during the tree search, e.g. -EIO,
then the error code is always over-written to -EINVAL.

Fix both problems by following other call sites by overwriting @ret to
-ENOENT if the btrfs_search_slot() failed to locate the key.

This is very unlikely to hit, as we only enter update_raid_extent_item()
if there is a conflicting key already in the raid stripe tree.

This is again reported by Sashiko when reviewing another patch.

Link: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260817021512.3010812-1-shuangpeng.kernel%40gmail.com
Fixes: 8c4cba2adbb0 ("btrfs: update stripe extents for existing logical addresses")
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <[email protected]>
---
 fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c
index 6291775dbe0e..d9e660447205 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/raid-stripe-tree.c
@@ -310,8 +310,10 @@ static int update_raid_extent_item(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
 
 	ret = btrfs_search_slot(trans, trans->fs_info->stripe_root, key, path,
 				0, 1);
-	if (ret)
-		return (ret == 1 ? ret : -EINVAL);
+	if (ret > 0)
+		ret = -ENOENT;
+	if (ret < 0)
+		return ret;
 
 	leaf = path->nodes[0];
 	slot = path->slots[0];
-- 
2.54.0