[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130402110918.GA10495@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:09:18 +0800
From: Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@...il.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc: wenqing.lz@...bao.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, kbuild@...org,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: ext4: fold ext4_generic_write_end() into ext4_write_end()
[Add Ted into cc list]
Hi Dan,
Thanks for pointing it out.
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 11:11:44AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Hello Zheng Liu,
>
> The patch 31e4045fda81: "ext4: fold ext4_generic_write_end() into
> ext4_write_end()" from Mar 26, 2013, leads to the following warning:
> "fs/ext4/inode.c:1169 ext4_write_end()
> warn: unsigned 'copied' is never less than zero."
>
>
> 1110 static int ext4_write_end(struct file *file,
> 1111 struct address_space *mapping,
> 1112 loff_t pos, unsigned len, unsigned copied,
>
> copied is unsigned.
>
> 1113 struct page *page, void *fsdata)
> 1114 {
> 1115 handle_t *handle = ext4_journal_current_handle();
> 1116 struct inode *inode = mapping->host;
> 1117 int ret = 0, ret2;
> 1118 int i_size_changed = 0;
> 1119
> 1120 trace_ext4_write_end(inode, pos, len, copied);
> 1121 if (ext4_test_inode_state(inode, EXT4_STATE_ORDERED_MODE)) {
> 1122 ret = ext4_jbd2_file_inode(handle, inode);
> 1123 if (ret) {
> 1124 unlock_page(page);
> 1125 page_cache_release(page);
> 1126 goto errout;
> 1127 }
> 1128 }
> 1129
> 1130 if (ext4_has_inline_data(inode))
> 1131 copied = ext4_write_inline_data_end(inode, pos, len,
> 1132 copied, page);
> 1133 else
> 1134 copied = block_write_end(file, mapping, pos,
> 1135 len, copied, page, fsdata);
>
> I don't think these functions return negative error codes.
Yes, I check these two functions and they don't return a negative error
code.
>
> 1136
> 1137 /*
> 1138 * No need to use i_size_read() here, the i_size
> 1139 * cannot change under us because we hole i_mutex.
> 1140 *
> 1141 * But it's important to update i_size while still holding page lock:
> 1142 * page writeout could otherwise come in and zero beyond i_size.
> 1143 */
> 1144 if (pos + copied > inode->i_size) {
> 1145 i_size_write(inode, pos + copied);
> 1146 i_size_changed = 1;
> 1147 }
> 1148
> 1149 if (pos + copied > EXT4_I(inode)->i_disksize) {
> 1150 /* We need to mark inode dirty even if
> 1151 * new_i_size is less that inode->i_size
> 1152 * but greater than i_disksize. (hint delalloc)
> 1153 */
> 1154 ext4_update_i_disksize(inode, (pos + copied));
> 1155 i_size_changed = 1;
> 1156 }
> 1157 unlock_page(page);
> 1158 page_cache_release(page);
> 1159
> 1160 /*
> 1161 * Don't mark the inode dirty under page lock. First, it unnecessarily
> 1162 * makes the holding time of page lock longer. Second, it forces lock
> 1163 * ordering of page lock and transaction start for journaling
> 1164 * filesystems.
> 1165 */
> 1166 if (i_size_changed)
> 1167 ext4_mark_inode_dirty(handle, inode);
> 1168
> 1169 if (copied < 0)
> 1170 ret = copied;
>
> copied is never less than zero because it's unsigned.
Yes, it should be removed.
Ted, please remove this check.
Thanks,
- Zheng
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists