On Fri 26-01-24 16:57:16, Baokun Li wrote: > The max_zeroout is of type int and the s_extent_max_zeroout_kb is of > type uint, and the s_extent_max_zeroout_kb can be freely modified via > the sysfs interface. When the block size is 1024, max_zeroout may > overflow, so declare it as unsigned int to avoid overflow. > > Signed-off-by: Baokun Li <libaokun1@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/ext4/extents.c | 6 ++---- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c > index 01299b55a567..8653b13e8248 100644 > --- a/fs/ext4/extents.c > +++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c > @@ -3425,10 +3425,8 @@ static int ext4_ext_convert_to_initialized(handle_t *handle, > struct ext4_extent zero_ex1, zero_ex2; > struct ext4_extent *ex, *abut_ex; > ext4_lblk_t ee_block, eof_block; > - unsigned int ee_len, depth, map_len = map->m_len; > - int allocated = 0, max_zeroout = 0; > - int err = 0; > - int split_flag = EXT4_EXT_DATA_VALID2; > + unsigned int ee_len, depth, map_len = map->m_len, max_zeroout = 0; > + int err = 0, allocated = 0, split_flag = EXT4_EXT_DATA_VALID2; Honestly, I prefer if we keep unrelated variables on different lines, especially when they have initializers. I find the code more readable that way. So in this case: int err = 0; int split_flag = EXT4_EXT_DATA_VALID2; int allocated = 0; unsigned int max_zeroout = 0; But otherwise the fix looks good! Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
