On Mon 15-03-10 11:21:13, Dan Carpenter wrote: > bloc->logicalBlockNum is unsigned so it's never less than zero. > > When I saw that, it made me worry that "bloc->logicalBlockNum + count" > could overflow. That's why I changed the check for less than zero > to an overflow check. (The test works because "count" is also > unsigned.) > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@xxxxxxxxx> Thanks. Merged. > --- > GCC 4.1 apparently optimizes overflow checks like this away, but it should > work for other versions of gcc. I tested with GCC 4.3. > http://www.fefe.de/intof.html It should only optimize them out for signed types (moreover kernel has this optimization turned off so it's a non-issue for us anyway). Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
