>> The only explanation I can think of is that you guys are discussing >> different code. :P My response contained several conflations :-) ... The code in file.c that Colin has flagged does indeed have buffer_index being initialized needlessly, and the assignment noted by Dan is also needless. There's even a second needless assignment done in another place in the same function. While the code around them has changed over time, these now needless manipulations of buffer_index are not new. I'll get rid of them. >> You often send these patches before they hit linux-next so I had skipped >> reviewing this one when you sent it. I know Linus is likely to refuse pull requests for stuff that has not been through linux-next, so I make sure stuff has been there at least a few days before asking for it to be pulled. "A few days" is long enough for robots to see it, perhaps not long enough for humans. I especially appreciate the human review. One of the good things about Orangefs is that it is easy to install and configure, especially for testing. Documentation/filesystems/orangefs.txt has instructions for dnf installing orangefs on Fedora, and also how to download a source tarball and install from that. -Mike On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 11:04 AM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 12:06:31PM -0400, Mike Marshall wrote: > > Hi Colin... > > > > Thanks for the patch. Before I initialized buffer_index, Dan Williams sent > > in a warning that a particular error path could try to use ibuffer_index > > uninitialized. I could induce the problem he described with one > > of the xfstests resulting in a crashed kernel. I will try to refactor > > the code to fix the problem some other way than initializing > > buffer_index in the declaration. > > > > The only explanation I can think of is that you guys are discussing > different code. :P > > regards, > dan carpenter >
