> 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!
Yes, the latter looks better.
Thanks!
> >
> > BR
> > ---
> > Kohada Tetsuhiro <Kohada.Tetsuhiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
