On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 11:11:33 +0200, Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In commit 1f0e51771281 "ext4: Introduce FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE flag
> for fallocate" we've introduced wrong flag handling. Fix it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/ext4/extents.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
> index 243a02e..491208c 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c
> @@ -3644,13 +3644,13 @@ static int ext4_split_convert_extents(handle_t *handle,
> ee_len = ext4_ext_get_actual_len(ex);
>
> /* Convert to unwritten */
> - if (flags | EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_CONVERT_UNWRITTEN) {
> + if (flags & EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_CONVERT_UNWRITTEN) {
:). But how did you found this?
I think that this type of bugs should be caught by some semantics
analyzer? I've done simple test and sparse(1) owerlooked this,
Also I cant find specific rule for Coccinelle ( if (var | CONST)).
> split_flag |= EXT4_EXT_DATA_VALID1;
> /* Convert to initialized */
> - } else if (flags | EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_CONVERT) {
> + } else if (flags & EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_CONVERT) {
> split_flag |= ee_block + ee_len <= eof_block ?
> EXT4_EXT_MAY_ZEROOUT : 0;
> - split_flag |= (EXT4_EXT_MARK_UNINIT2 & EXT4_EXT_DATA_VALID2);
> + split_flag |= (EXT4_EXT_MARK_UNINIT2 | EXT4_EXT_DATA_VALID2);
> }
> flags |= EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_PRE_IO;
> return ext4_split_extent(handle, inode, path, map, split_flag, flags);
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
