Thanks for taking a look! On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: <snip> >> - if (rename_limit <= 0 || rename_limit > 32767) >> - rename_limit = 32767; >> if ((num_create <= rename_limit || num_src <= rename_limit) && >> - (num_create * num_src <= rename_limit * rename_limit)) >> + ((double)num_create * (double)num_src >> + <= (double)rename_limit * (double)rename_limit)) >> return 0; > > From a technical perspective, I would think that if > (num_create <= rename_limit || num_src <= rename_limit) > holds true, that the double-cast condition would also be always true? > Could we just remove that last check? Not necessarily. For example, if num_create = rename_limit-1 and num_src = rename_limit+2, then the first condition will be satisfied but the second won't. If it was && rather than ||, then the second condition would be superfluous. > Or phrased differently, if we can cast to double and extend the check > here, do we have to adapt code at other places as well? Good point, and yes. Perhaps I should have re-ordered my patch series because I came back to it later and realized that the progress code was broken due to overflow/wraparound, and a patch 3 fixed that. Further, the later patch used uint64_t instead of double. While double works, perhaps I should change the double here to uint64_t for consistency?
