I think I was a little bit too early with review :) Below I have some
comments.
Marcin Niestrój <m.niestroj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> In ramfs_truncate() "newchunks" denotes the number of chunks we
>> want to have after the call. We decrease that number while iterating
>> over the existing chunks and decrease it further with every newly
>> allocated chunk until "newchunks" is zero.
>> This is a bit hard to read. Instead we drop the decreasing while
>> iterating over existing chunks and increase "oldchunks" while allocating
>> until it reaches "newchunks".
>>
>> This is mainly done to make the next patch easier.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/ramfs.c | 9 ++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/ramfs.c b/fs/ramfs.c
>> index 09dafe02ae..8ba8d77de9 100644
>> --- a/fs/ramfs.c
>> +++ b/fs/ramfs.c
>> @@ -384,19 +384,18 @@ static int ramfs_truncate(struct device_d *dev, FILE *f, ulong size)
>> if (!node->data)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>> data = node->data;
>> + newchunks = 1;
What is the reason of this instruction? What if 'size' == 16384 and we
do it on freshly opened file (with truncate(fd, 16384)? 'newchunk'
should be 2 in that case, or not?
Regards,
Marcin
>> }
>>
>> - newchunks--;
>> - while (data->next) {
>> - newchunks--;
>> + while (data->next)
>> data = data->next;
>> - }
>>
>> - while (newchunks--) {
>> + while (newchunks > oldchunks) {
>> data->next = ramfs_get_chunk();
>> if (!data->next)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>> data = data->next;
>> + oldchunks++;
>> }
>> }
>> node->size = size;
>
> Reviewed-by: Marcin Niestroj <m.niestroj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
