Re: [PATCH] Corrections to affs and sfs

[Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>]

On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 06:44:46PM +0100, Krzysztof Smiechowicz wrote:
> Robert Millan pisze:
> 
> >>Index: fs/sfs.c
> >>===================================================================
> >>--- fs/sfs.c	(revision 1919)
> >>+++ fs/sfs.c	(working copy)
> >>@@ -172,7 +172,8 @@
> >> 	  return grub_errno;
> >> 	}
> >> 
> >>-      for (i = 0; i < grub_be_to_cpu16 (tree->nodes); i++)
> >>+      grub_uint16_t nodescount = grub_be_to_cpu16(tree->nodes);
> >>+      for (i = nodescount - 1; i >= 0; i--)
> >
> >nodescount is only used once; why adding a variable?
> >
> >> 	  /* Follow the tree down to the leaf level.  */
> >>-	  if ((grub_be_to_cpu32 (EXTNODE(tree, i)->key) >= block)
> >>+	  if ((grub_be_to_cpu32 (EXTNODE(tree, i)->key) <= block)
> >> 	      && !tree->leaf)
> >> 	    {
> >>-	      next = grub_be_to_cpu32 (EXTNODE (tree, i - 1)->data);
> >>-	      break;
> >>-	    }
> >>-
> >>-	  /* In case the last node is reached just use that one, it is
> >>-	     the right match.  */
> >>-	  if (i + 1 == grub_be_to_cpu16 (tree->nodes) && !tree->leaf)
> >>-	    {
> >> 	      next = grub_be_to_cpu32 (EXTNODE (tree, i)->data);
> >> 	      break;
> >> 	    }
> >
> >I'm not familiar with our SFS code.  Marco, if you have a minute could you
> >review this part?
> >
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Any news about applying this patch? :)

Since Marco (who wrote that file) is not currently active, and nobody else
seems to be able to test and/or proofread it, we could just trust that you
know what you're doing.

Please, could you resend the patch without the unneeded 'nodescount' and
a ChangeLog entry?

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."