. . .
> One small comment below, otherwise:
>
> Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > @@ -500,16 +502,17 @@ generate_obfuscated_name(
> > */
> > newhash = rol32(newhash, 3) ^ hash;
> >
> > + first = newp;
> > high_bit = 0;
> > - for (i = 5; i > 0; i--) {
> > - int shift = (i - 1) * 7;
> > -
> > - newp[namelen - i] = ((newhash >> shift) & 0x7f) ^ high_bit;
> > - if (is_invalid_char(newp[namelen - i])) {
> > - newp[namelen - i] ^= 1;
> > + for (shift = 28; shift >= 0; shift -= 7) {
> > + *newp = (newhash >> shift & 0x7f) ^ high_bit;
>
> I'd prefer not to have to refer to my C bible to remind myself what
> the precedence of ">>" vs "&" is, so perhaps leaving the second set
> of () in this statement would be a good idea.
Done.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
