On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 01:27:07PM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > It just hit me that extnum_t is signed and xfs_iext_get_extent() checks > for < 0, so that covers here and my similar previous few comments. I > still think we should probably check it in context rather than bury the > check in the caller (I'd prefer an assert). Just my .02. There are several callers that rely on xfs_iext_get_extent handling negative extents with a NULL return - in fact one reason for the exact prototype of the function is to cover out of bound indices that happen during normal operation based on how we iterate over the extent list. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
