On Thu 25-03-21 09:37:43, Christian Brauner wrote:
> From: Christian Brauner <christian.brau...@ubuntu.com>
>
> I don't see an obvious reason why the upper 32 bit check needs to be
> open-coded this way. Switch to upper_32_bits() which is more idiomatic and
> should conceptually be the same check.
>
> Cc: Amir Goldstein <amir7...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Jan Kara <j...@suse.cz>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brau...@ubuntu.com>
Thanks for the cleanup. I've added it to my tree.
Honza
> ---
> fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c
> b/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c
> index 9e0c1afac8bd..d5683fa9d495 100644
> --- a/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c
> +++ b/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c
> @@ -1126,7 +1126,7 @@ static int do_fanotify_mark(int fanotify_fd, unsigned
> int flags, __u64 mask,
> __func__, fanotify_fd, flags, dfd, pathname, mask);
>
> /* we only use the lower 32 bits as of right now. */
> - if (mask & ((__u64)0xffffffff << 32))
> + if (upper_32_bits(mask))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> if (flags & ~FANOTIFY_MARK_FLAGS)
>
> base-commit: 0d02ec6b3136c73c09e7859f0d0e4e2c4c07b49b
> --
> 2.27.0
>
--
Jan Kara <j...@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
