On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 01:22:28PM +0200, Marcin Niestrój wrote:
> 
> 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?

Yes, you're right. It should be "oldchunks = 1" instead. Then we have:

>               if (!data) {
>                       node->data = ramfs_get_chunk();
>                       if (!node->data)
>                               return -ENOMEM;
>                       data = node->data;
>                       oldchunks = 1;
>               }

!data we have no chunks allocated. We allocate one and set oldchunks to one. 
When we
do:

>               while (newchunks > oldchunks) {
>                       data->next = ramfs_get_chunk();
>                       if (!data->next)
>                               return -ENOMEM;
>                       data = data->next;
>                       oldchunks++;
>               }

In your example above we execute this loop once, allocate the second chunk, 
oldchunks
will become two which is the same as newchunks and then we go out.

I hope this is correct now ;)

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Reply via email to