[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87d2vxznzk.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 23:38:07 +0900
From: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
To: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>,
Ravishankar N <ravi.n1@...sung.com>,
Amit Sahrawat <a.sahrawat@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/7] fat: restructure export_operations
Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com> writes:
>>> + if (parent && (len < FAT_FID_SIZE_WITH_PARENT)) {
>>> + *lenp = FAT_FID_SIZE_WITH_PARENT;
>>> + return 255;
>>> + } else if (len < FAT_FID_SIZE_WITHOUT_PARENT) {
>>> + *lenp = FAT_FID_SIZE_WITHOUT_PARENT;
>>> + return 255;
>>> + }
>>
>> This check strange. "parent && len == FAT_FID_SIZE_WITHOUT_PARENT" will
>> overwrite over limit of fh size?
> I need to check more. because I followed the logic in
> export_encode_fh() function.
Ah, my fault, it doesn't have real problem. But code is quite strange.
If input is "parent && len >= FAT_FID_SIZE_WITHOUT_PARENT", "else if
(len < FAT_FID_SIZE_WITHOUT_PARENT)" check is entirely useless, but this
code itself checks "len".
if (parent) {
if (len < FAT_FID_SIZE_WITH_PARENT)
/* error */
} else {
if (len < FAT_FID_SIZE_WITHOUT_PARENT)
/* error */
}
I think this would readable, and I guess this will generates faster/simpler
code (at least, this doesn't depends an optimization of gcc).
Thanks.
--
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
--
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