On 2023/11/9 21:45, Zizhi Wo wrote:
在 2023/11/9 21:14, Gao Xiang 写道:
Hi,
On 2023/11/10 03:48, WoZ1zh1 wrote:
Because variables "die" and "copied" only appear in case
EROFS_INODE_LAYOUT_EXTENDED, move them from the outer space into this
case. Also, call "kfree(copied)" earlier to avoid double free in the
"error_out" branch. Some cleanups, no logic changes.
Signed-off-by: WoZ1zh1 <wozi...@huawei.com>
Please help use your real name here...
---
fs/erofs/inode.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/erofs/inode.c b/fs/erofs/inode.c
index b8ad05b4509d..a388c93eec34 100644
--- a/fs/erofs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/erofs/inode.c
@@ -19,7 +19,6 @@ static void *erofs_read_inode(struct erofs_buf *buf,
erofs_blk_t blkaddr, nblks = 0;
void *kaddr;
struct erofs_inode_compact *dic;
- struct erofs_inode_extended *die, *copied = NULL;
unsigned int ifmt;
int err;
@@ -53,6 +52,8 @@ static void *erofs_read_inode(struct erofs_buf *buf,
switch (erofs_inode_version(ifmt)) {
case EROFS_INODE_LAYOUT_EXTENDED:
+ struct erofs_inode_extended *die, *copied = NULL;
Thanks for the patch, but in my own opinion:
1) It doesn't simplify the code
OK, I'm sorry for the noise(;´༎ຶД༎ຶ`)
2) We'd like to avoid defining variables like this (in the
switch block), and I even don't think this patch can compile.
I tested this patch with gcc-12.2.1 locally and it compiled
successfully. I'm not sure if this patch will fail in other environment
with different compiler...
For example, it fails as below on gcc 10.2.1:
fs/erofs/inode.c: In function 'erofs_read_inode':
fs/erofs/inode.c:55:3: error: a label can only be part of a statement and a
declaration is not a statement
55 | struct erofs_inode_extended *die, *copied = NULL;
| ^~~~~~
3) The logic itself is also broken...
Maybe I was missing something, but this usage makes
me uneasy...
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
Sorry, but I just don't understand why the logic itself is broken, and
can you please explain more?
Thanks,
Zizhi Wo
Thanks,
Gao Xiang