2013/2/18 OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>>>> + if (parent && (len < FAT_FID_SIZE_WITH_PARENT)) {
>>>> + *lenp = FAT_FID_SIZE_WITH_PARENT;
>>>> + return 255;
>>>> + } else if (len < FAT_FID_SIZE_WITHOUT_PARENT) {
>>>> + *lenp = FAT_FID_SIZE_WITHOUT_PARENT;
>>>> + return 255;
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> This check strange. "parent && len == FAT_FID_SIZE_WITHOUT_PARENT" will
>>> overwrite over limit of fh size?
>> I need to check more. because I followed the logic in
>> export_encode_fh() function.
>
> Ah, my fault, it doesn't have real problem. But code is quite strange.
>
> If input is "parent && len >= FAT_FID_SIZE_WITHOUT_PARENT", "else if
> (len < FAT_FID_SIZE_WITHOUT_PARENT)" check is entirely useless, but this
> code itself checks "len".
>
> if (parent) {
> if (len < FAT_FID_SIZE_WITH_PARENT)
> /* error */
> } else {
> if (len < FAT_FID_SIZE_WITHOUT_PARENT)
> /* error */
> }
>
> I think this would readable, and I guess this will generates faster/simpler
> code (at least, this doesn't depends an optimization of gcc).
I agree. I will change it as your opinion.
Thanks a lot, OGAWA!.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
