I think I was a little bit too early with review :) Below I have some comments.
Marcin Niestrój <[email protected]> writes: > Sascha Hauer <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> --- >> 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 <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
