[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1202132149270.16039@swampdragon.chaosbits.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:51:05 +0100 (CET)
From: Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
To: xfs@....sgi.com
cc: xfs-masters@....sgi.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>, Ben Myers <bpm@....com>
Subject: [PATCH] XFS; xfs_trans_add_item() - don't assign in ASSERT() when
compare is intended
It looks to me like the two ASSERT()s in xfs_trans_add_item() really
want to do a compare (==) rather than assignment (=).
This patch changes it from the former to the latter.
I must admit though, that I don't know this code well and have only
compile tested this change. But if assignment is really intended it
really seems strange to do it as part of an ASSERT...
Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
---
fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c | 4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c
index 329b06a..7adcdf1 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c
@@ -1151,8 +1151,8 @@ xfs_trans_add_item(
{
struct xfs_log_item_desc *lidp;
- ASSERT(lip->li_mountp = tp->t_mountp);
- ASSERT(lip->li_ailp = tp->t_mountp->m_ail);
+ ASSERT(lip->li_mountp == tp->t_mountp);
+ ASSERT(lip->li_ailp == tp->t_mountp->m_ail);
lidp = kmem_zone_zalloc(xfs_log_item_desc_zone, KM_SLEEP | KM_NOFS);
--
1.7.9
--
Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net> http://www.chaosbits.net/
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists