[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAH2r5mtXR7xeP79Rit58769r+Q22Cg6ruV7dSPcNOb_=rQ9neA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 01:45:11 -0500
From: Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <nspmangalore@...il.com>,
Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@...rosoft.com>,
Rohith Surabattula <rohiths.msft@...il.com>,
Paulo Alcantara <pc@...guebit.com>,
Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cifs: Fix cifs_limit_bvec_subset() to correctly check the
maxmimum size
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 1:11 PM David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Shyam Prasad N <nspmangalore@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > > + max_size -= len;
> >
> > Shouldn't this decrement happen below, after the span has been
> > compared with max_size?
>
> It probably doesn't matter. The compiler is free to move it around, but yes
> that and ix++ can both be moved down.
I am not sure I follow - can you explain? It looks like moving it up
vs. down would change behavior
--
Thanks,
Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists