On Wed, 2016-08-10 at 15:08 +0200, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 14:56:58 +0200
> Martin Wilck <mwilck at suse.de> wrote:
>
> > The boolean expression replicates the logic of open_dump_bitmap().
> > It's simpler and less error-prone to simply check if fd_bitmap is
> > valid.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Martin Wilck <mwilck at suse.de>
> > ---
> > ?makedumpfile.c | 3 +--
> > ?1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/makedumpfile.c b/makedumpfile.c
> > index 43278f1..771ab7c 100644
> > --- a/makedumpfile.c
> > +++ b/makedumpfile.c
> > @@ -8579,8 +8579,7 @@ close_dump_file(void)
> > ?void
> > ?close_dump_bitmap(void)
> > ?{
> > - if (!info->working_dir && !info->flag_reassemble && !info-
> > >flag_refiltering
> > - ????&& !info->flag_sadump && !info->flag_mem_usage)
> > + if (!info->fd_bitmap)
>
> Strictly speaking, zero is a valid FD. I can see that it is highly
> unlikely to be the bitmap FD, but it would be a nice cleanup to
> initialize fd_bitmap to a negative number and check info->fd_bitmap <
> 0.
> I'm just not sure where to put the initializition...
> > OTOH I know I'm asking you to fix something that you didn't break.
I had the same thought, and the same excuse not to address it in this
patch set. If you grep makedumpfile.c for "fd_bitmap", you'll see many
checks like "if (info->fd_bitmap)". I just followed that pattern for
now.
Martin
