* Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@xxxxxxxxxx> [221115 09:29]: > * Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxx> [221112 19:56]: > > Root node is return at the beginning, so we are sure bit 0 is not set. > > > > Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxx> > > CC: Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > lib/maple_tree.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/lib/maple_tree.c b/lib/maple_tree.c > > index 9aad98c24f3e..f8c4755e7c75 100644 > > --- a/lib/maple_tree.c > > +++ b/lib/maple_tree.c > > @@ -436,7 +436,7 @@ enum maple_type mte_parent_enum(struct maple_enode *p_enode, > > return 0; /* Validated in the caller. */ > > > > p_type &= MAPLE_NODE_MASK; > > - p_type = p_type & ~(MAPLE_PARENT_ROOT | mte_parent_slot_mask(p_type)); > > + p_type = p_type & ~mte_parent_slot_mask(p_type); > > I think there is a larger cleanup that can be done here. It looks like > mte_parent_enum() is called from one location and that location is a > wrapper. > > The check for the root bit should also probably trigger a WARN_ON() and > still return 0. I don't think the callers are doing enough to validate > it - although they should never reach this function with a root node. > And, in fact, I am not doing enough in the test code since I didn't > guard this correctly in the verification of the parent slot before > calling this function. > > Thanks for pointing this out. I will send out a patch to clean this up > shortly. On second thought, I will hold off for the 6.2 merge window for this to go upstream. Thanks, Liam
