2020-05-27 17:00 GMT+09:00,
Kohada.Tetsuhiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<Kohada.Tetsuhiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Thank you for your comment.
>
> >> + for (i = 0; i < es->num_bh; i++) {
> >> + if (es->modified)
> >> + exfat_update_bh(es->sb, es->bh[i], sync);
> >
> > Overall, it looks good to me.
> > However, if "sync" is set, it looks better to return the result of
> exfat_update_bh().
> > Of course, a tiny modification for exfat_update_bh() is also required.
>
> I thought the same, while creating this patch.
> However this patch has changed a lot and I didn't add any new error
> checking.
> (So, the same behavior will occur even if an error occurs)
>
> >> +struct exfat_dentry *exfat_get_dentry_cached(
> >> + struct exfat_entry_set_cache *es, int num) {
> >> + int off = es->start_off + num * DENTRY_SIZE;
> >> + struct buffer_head *bh = es->bh[EXFAT_B_TO_BLK(off, es->sb)];
> >> + char *p = bh->b_data + EXFAT_BLK_OFFSET(off, es->sb);
> >
> > In order to prevent illegal accesses to bh and dentries, it would be
> better to check validation for num and bh.
>
> There is no new error checking for same reason as above.
>
> I'll try to add error checking to this v2 patch.
> Or is it better to add error checking in another patch?
The latter:)
Thanks!
>
> BR
> ---
> Kohada Tetsuhiro <Kohada.Tetsuhiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
