I'm picking through some of the bugs in coverity's database, and I came across this one, which I'm unsure of.. In xfs_dir2_leafn_unbalance we have this code.. 1583 if (xfs_dir2_leafn_order(save_blk->bp, drop_blk->bp)) 1584 xfs_dir3_leafn_moveents(args, drop_blk->bp, &drophdr, dents, 0, 1585 save_blk->bp, &savehdr, sents, 0, 1586 drophdr.count); 1587 else 1588 xfs_dir3_leafn_moveents(args, drop_blk->bp, &drophdr, dents, 0, 1589 save_blk->bp, &savehdr, sents, 1590 savehdr.count, drophdr.count); The issue that coverity picked up in both cases, is that 'sents' and 'dents' are in a different order to how the xfs_dir3_leafn_moveents function expects them. Is this intentional ? If so I'll mark it as such in their db. thanks, Dave _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
