On Thu 25-03-21 09:37:43, Christian Brauner wrote: > From: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > I don't see an obvious reason why the upper 32 bit check needs to be > open-coded this way. Switch to upper_32_bits() which is more idiomatic and > should conceptually be the same check. > > Cc: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks for the cleanup. I've added it to my tree. Honza > --- > fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c b/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c > index 9e0c1afac8bd..d5683fa9d495 100644 > --- a/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c > +++ b/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c > @@ -1126,7 +1126,7 @@ static int do_fanotify_mark(int fanotify_fd, unsigned int flags, __u64 mask, > __func__, fanotify_fd, flags, dfd, pathname, mask); > > /* we only use the lower 32 bits as of right now. */ > - if (mask & ((__u64)0xffffffff << 32)) > + if (upper_32_bits(mask)) > return -EINVAL; > > if (flags & ~FANOTIFY_MARK_FLAGS) > > base-commit: 0d02ec6b3136c73c09e7859f0d0e4e2c4c07b49b > -- > 2.27.0 > -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
