linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: exfat: add exfat filesystem code to staging

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]

Date:   Fri, 30 Aug 2019 01:02:25 +0800
From:   Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@...wei.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
CC:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        "devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
        Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...rosoft.com>,
        Valdis Klētnieks <valdis.kletnieks@...edu>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "OGAWA Hirofumi" <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: exfat: add exfat filesystem code to staging

Hi Joe,

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 09:59:21AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-08-30 at 00:44 +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> > Hi Dan,
> > 
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 11:43:46PM +0800, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > p.s. There are 2947 (un)likely places in fs/ directory.
> > > 
> > > I was complaining about you adding new pointless ones, not existing
> > > ones.  The likely/unlikely annotations are supposed to be functional and
> > > not decorative.  I explained this very clearly.
> > > 
> > > Probably most of the annotations in fs/ are wrong but they are also
> > > harmless except for the slight messiness.  However there are definitely
> > > some which are important so removing them all isn't a good idea.
> > > 
> > > > If you like, I will delete them all.
> > > 
> > > But for erofs, I don't think that any of the likely/unlikely calls have
> > > been thought about so I'm fine with removing all of them in one go.
> > 
> > Anyway, I have removed them all in
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20190829163827.203274-1-gaoxiang25@huawei.com/
> > 
> > Does it look good to you?
> 
> Unrelated bikeshed from a trivial look:
> 
> There's a block there that looks like:
> 
> diff --git a/fs/erofs/data.c b/fs/erofs/data.c
> []
> @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ struct page *__erofs_get_meta_page(struct super_block *sb,
>  		}
>  
>  		err = bio_add_page(bio, page, PAGE_SIZE, 0);
> -		if (unlikely(err != PAGE_SIZE)) {
> +		if (err != PAGE_SIZE) {
>  			err = -EFAULT;
>  			goto err_out;
>  		}
> 
> The initial assignment to err is odd as it's not
> actually an error value -E<FOO> but a int size
> from a unsigned int len.
> 
> Here the return is either 0 or PAGE_SIZE.
> 
> This would be more legible to me as:
> 
> 		if (bio_add_page(bio, page, PAGE_SIZE, 0) != PAGE_SIZE) {
> 			err = -EFAULT;
> 			goto err_out;
> 		}

Okay, that is more reasonable, I will update the original patch as you suggested.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

> 
>