From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chao Yu Subject: Re: f2fs: reorganize f2fs_map_blocks Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 21:21:01 +0800 Message-ID: <00d701d0f539$9eadb6b0$dc092410$@samsung.com> References: <20150921162508.GD5648@mwanda> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1ZeNW2-0001ps-Td for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 13:21:50 +0000 Received: from mailout2.samsung.com ([203.254.224.25]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1ZeNW0-0006R9-Tc for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 13:21:50 +0000 Received: from epcpsbgm2new.samsung.com (epcpsbgm2 [203.254.230.27]) by mailout2.samsung.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.31.0 64bit (built May 5 2014)) with ESMTP id <0NV202WXVYG4TF40@mailout2.samsung.com> for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 22:21:41 +0900 (KST) In-reply-to: <20150921162508.GD5648@mwanda> Content-language: zh-cn List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: 'Dan Carpenter' Cc: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Hi Dan, > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Carpenter [mailto:dan.carpenter@oracle.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:25 AM > To: chao2.yu@samsung.com > Cc: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: re: f2fs: reorganize f2fs_map_blocks > > Hello Chao Yu, > > The patch bce86a6c64a7: "f2fs: reorganize f2fs_map_blocks" from Sep > 11, 2015, leads to the following static checker warning: > > fs/f2fs/data.c:653 f2fs_map_blocks() > warn: was || intended here instead of &&? > > fs/f2fs/data.c > 650 if (maxblocks > map->m_len) { > 651 block_t blkaddr = datablock_addr(dn.node_page, dn.ofs_in_node); > 652 > 653 if (blkaddr == NEW_ADDR && blkaddr == NULL_ADDR) { > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Impossible condition. Thanks for pointing it out. :) My v2 patch sent several days ago has fixed that issue. Thanks, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------