On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 20:36 -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 17:03 -0800, Frank Filz wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Frank Filz <ffilzlnx@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > diff -X ignore.patcher -ruNp linux-2.6.18-194.el5/fs/nfs/inode.c linux-2.6.18-194.ff/fs/nfs/inode.c
> > --- linux-2.6.18-194.el5/fs/nfs/inode.c 2010-12-01 15:52:11.000000000 -0800
> > +++ linux-2.6.18-194.ff/fs/nfs/inode.c 2010-12-01 16:53:28.000000000 -0800
> > @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ static kmem_cache_t * nfs_inode_cachep;
> > */
> > u64 nfs_compat_user_ino64(u64 fileid)
> > {
> > - int ino;
> > + unsigned int ino;
>
> Shouldn't this just be of type 'compat_ulong_t' if CONFIG_COMPAT is
> defined, and of type 'unsigned long' if not?
The full (patched) function is:
u64 nfs_compat_user_ino64(u64 fileid)
{
unsigned int ino;
if (enable_ino64)
return fileid;
ino = fileid;
if (sizeof(ino) < sizeof(fileid))
ino ^= fileid >> (sizeof(fileid)-sizeof(ino)) * 8;
return ino;
}
ino is only used if the function is expected to return a 32 bit fileid,
so no need for it to be anything other than an unsigned int. I suppose
it should actually be a uint32.
Frank
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
