linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs/minix: bugfix, number of indirect block ptrs per block depends on block size

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100527160114.GH31073@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 27 May 2010 17:01:14 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	Erik van der Kouwe <vdkouwe@...vu.nl>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Fam Zheng <famcool@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/minix: bugfix, number of indirect block ptrs per
 block depends on block size

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:54:43PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > -	} else if ((block -= 7) < 256) {
> > -		offsets[n++] = 7;
> > +	} else if ((block -= DIRCOUNT) < INDIRCOUNT(sb)) {
>   This modification of 'block' in the if condition is a blatant violation
> of the kernel coding style.

The hell it is. [...said the guy who'd written it that way in the first place]
It _is_ idiomatic C for that kind of thing ("we've got several adjacent ranges,
find which one had we hit and how far from its start").
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/