[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130905190837.GD23661@thunk.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 15:08:37 -0400
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ext4: cache all of an extent tree's leaf block upon reading
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 11:14:57AM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > So the only reason to add a line explicitly setting es_pblk to zero
> > would be to suppress a warning from some insufficiently smart static
> > code analysis tool. I didn't see a warning from gcc, but it's
> > possible that this is something which is causing Coverity or some
> > other code scanner heartburn.
>
> Yep, that's what picked it up. I'll add a 'not a bug' annotation to stop
> it getting flagged again. This was the only ext* issue that Coverity
> picked up from yesterdays merge btw, which I guess is good news ;)
Indeed.
Hmm... I could add a new inline function
"ext4_es_store_pblock_status()" which sets both parts of the es_pblk
word at once, and which doesn't depend looking at its original value
at all. I doubt we would never measure a difference in performance,
but in theory it would be more efficient. And if it eliminates a
potential static code analysis complaint, maybe the two justifications
is good enough to add the new function.
Thanks for checking the coverity results!!
- Ted
--
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