On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 09:12:14AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> GCC 4.6 complains about an array subscript is above array bounds when
> using the btree index to index into the agf_levels array. The only
> two indices passed in are 0 and 1, and we have an assert insuring that.
>
> Replace the trick of using the array index directly with using constants
> in the already existing branch for assigning the XFS_BTREE_LASTREC_UPDATE
> flag.
Ugh.
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
>
> Index: xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_alloc_btree.c
> ===================================================================
> --- xfs.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_alloc_btree.c 2011-06-17 14:16:27.929065669 +0200
> +++ xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_alloc_btree.c 2011-06-17 14:17:22.145729599 +0200
> @@ -427,13 +427,16 @@ xfs_allocbt_init_cursor(
>
> cur->bc_tp = tp;
> cur->bc_mp = mp;
> - cur->bc_nlevels = be32_to_cpu(agf->agf_levels[btnum]);
> cur->bc_btnum = btnum;
> cur->bc_blocklog = mp->m_sb.sb_blocklog;
> -
> cur->bc_ops = &xfs_allocbt_ops;
> - if (btnum == XFS_BTNUM_CNT)
> +
> + if (btnum == XFS_BTNUM_CNT) {
> + cur->bc_nlevels = be32_to_cpu(agf->agf_levels[XFS_BTNUM_CNT]);
> cur->bc_flags = XFS_BTREE_LASTREC_UPDATE;
> + } else {
> + cur->bc_nlevels = be32_to_cpu(agf->agf_levels[XFS_BTNUM_BNO]);
> + }
>
> cur->bc_private.a.agbp = agbp;
> cur->bc_private.a.agno = agno;
Looks fine.
Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
