>> > 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.
I see, it would be better to make the checks strict on this occasion.
So, could you work for that cleanup before your three patches as an
additional cleanup patch ?
Thanks,
Atsushi Kumagai
