On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:09:04AM -0600, Tom Tucker wrote: > On 2/15/12 10:16 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > >OK, Tom could you fix up these small things and repost? > > Sure, but just to be certain I understand fully, > > >--b. > > > >On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:23:42PM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > >>On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 05:01:25PM -0600, Tom Tucker wrote: > >> > >>>- if (ch->rc_discrim == 0) > >>>+ if (ch->rc_discrim == xdr_zero) > > You don't want this? It is true that sparse didn't complain, I was > simply making it obvious that this value is NBO and be consistent > across the code. Other places were using xdr_zero. Mainly it's a matter of "Al bothered to review it, and it sounded like a reasonable request." But, yes, I think I do agree with Al, a special constant for network-order zero seems like mild overkill, I'd be happier removing it. --b. > > >>Mostly, ACK, modulo this and similar sillyness. sparse is just fine with > >>use of constant 0 in bitwise contexts; it's also just fine with use of > >>bitwise in logical ones. > >> > >>>+ nchunks = ntohl(ary->wc_nchunks); > >>> if (((unsigned long)&ary->wc_array[0] + > >>>- (sizeof(struct rpcrdma_write_chunk) * ary->wc_nchunks))> > >>>+ (sizeof(struct rpcrdma_write_chunk) * nchunks))> > >>BTW, this still can overflow. With less painful consequences than before that > >>patch, but... > >> > >>>- BUG_ON(0 == virt_to_page(vec[i].iov_base)); > >>>+ BUG_ON(NULL == virt_to_page(vec[i].iov_base)); > >>Egads... What, "!virt_to_page(...)" would have been too pedestrian? > -- 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
