On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 10:37:49AM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > +void ext4_es_cache_extent(struct inode *inode, ext4_lblk_t lblk,
> > + ext4_lblk_t len, ext4_fsblk_t pblk,
> > + unsigned int status)
> > +{
> > + struct extent_status *es;
> > + struct extent_status newes;
> > + ext4_lblk_t end = lblk + len - 1;
> > +
> > + newes.es_lblk = lblk;
> > + newes.es_len = len;
> > + ext4_es_store_pblock(&newes, pblk);
>
>
> ext4_es_store_pblock or's the pblk with the existing contents of the struct
> member.
> (albeit masked with ES_MASK)
>
> Should there be a
>
> newes.es_pblk = 0;
>
> up there too ?
The next line after ext4_es_store_pblock() is:
ext4_es_store_status(&newes, status);
This will set remaining ES_WRITTEN | ES_UNWRITTEN... bits.
So the only reason to add a line explicitly setting es_pblk to zero
would be to suppress a warning from some insufficiently smart static
code analysis tool. I didn't see a warning from gcc, but it's
possible that this is something which is causing Coverity or some
other code scanner heartburn.
Cheers,
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
