On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 19:20:54 +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
>2022-09-12 5:57 GMT+09:00, Atte Heikkilä <atteh.mailbox@xxxxxxxxx>:
>Hi Atte,
>
>[snip]
>> +static char *casefold_sharename(struct unicode_map *um, const char *name>)
>> +{
>> + char *cf_name;
>> + int cf_len;
>> +
>> + cf_name = kzalloc(KSMBD_REQ_MAX_SHARE_NAME, GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!cf_name)
>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>> +
>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_UNICODE)) {
>> + const struct qstr q_name = {.name = name, .len = strlen(name)};
>> +
>> + if (!um)
>> + goto out_ascii;
>Minor nit, Wouldn't it be simpler to change something like the one below?
>
>+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_UNICODE) && um) {
This mailing list already has a v2 patch series. Please, reply to that one.
As for your suggestion, I thought to keep the statements separate since the
block with the IS_ENABLED() macro is optimized away when CONFIG_UNICODE is
not set. I understand that the behavior is the same with your suggestion.
Thank you.
>
>Thanks!
>> +
>> + cf_len = utf8_casefold(um, &q_name, cf_name,
>> + KSMBD_REQ_MAX_SHARE_NAME);
>> + if (cf_len < 0)
>> + goto out_ascii;
>> +
>> + return cf_name;
>> + }
>> +
>> +out_ascii:
>> + cf_len = strscpy(cf_name, name, KSMBD_REQ_MAX_SHARE_NAME);
>> + if (cf_len < 0)
>> + return ERR_PTR(-E2BIG);
>> +
>> + for (; *cf_name; ++cf_name)
>> + *cf_name = isascii(*cf_name) ? tolower(*cf_name) : *cf_name;
>> + return cf_name - cf_len;
>> +}
>> +
