On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 12:38:18PM +0100, Luis de Bethencourt wrote: > On 02/07/16 09:05, Salah Triki wrote: > > The only caller of befs_find_brun_direct is befs_fblock2brun, which > > already validates that the block is within the range of direct blocks. > > So remove the duplicate validation. > > > > Signed-off-by: Salah Triki <[email protected]> > > --- > > fs/befs/datastream.c | 8 -------- > > 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/befs/datastream.c b/fs/befs/datastream.c > > index 26cc417..e224b9a 100644 > > --- a/fs/befs/datastream.c > > +++ b/fs/befs/datastream.c > > @@ -249,17 +249,9 @@ befs_find_brun_direct(struct super_block *sb, const > > befs_data_stream *data, > > int i; > > const befs_block_run *array = data->direct; > > befs_blocknr_t sum; > > - befs_blocknr_t max_block = > > - data->max_direct_range >> BEFS_SB(sb)->block_shift; > > > > befs_debug(sb, "---> %s, find %lu", __func__, (unsigned long)blockno); > > > > - if (blockno > max_block) { > > - befs_error(sb, "%s passed block outside of direct region", > > - __func__); > > - return BEFS_ERR; > > - } > > - > > for (i = 0, sum = 0; i < BEFS_NUM_DIRECT_BLOCKS; > > sum += array[i].len, i++) { > > if (blockno >= sum && blockno < sum + (array[i].len)) { > > > > Hi Salah, > > These aren't the same check though. If we ignore the BEFS_SB(sb)->block_shift > just to > comparing them, we can consider the checks to be the following. > > In befs_fblock2brun(): > if (fblock < data->max_direct_range) > > In befs_find_brun_direct(): > if (fblock > data->max_direct_range) > > Notice how one checks if the block is past the range, and the other checks if > it isn't > before it. > > They also looked similar to me the first time I saw them and I had to > double-check :) > > Thanks, > Luis > >
the two checks could not be evaluated to true at the same time, and since befs_find_brun_direct is called only when the first check is passed, the second check will be always evaluated to false. So I think the second check is useless, am I right ? Salah
