[PATCH] Staging: lustre: lproc_osc: Remove irrelevant check

[PATCH] Staging: lustre: lproc_osc: Remove irrelevant check

[Shivani Bhardwaj]

The variable val has been declared as unsigned long and thus the check
for negative values should be removed from it.

Signed-off-by: Shivani Bhardwaj <shivanib134@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/lproc_osc.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/lproc_osc.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/lproc_osc.c
index 053d508..c4d44e7 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/lproc_osc.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/lproc_osc.c
@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ static ssize_t active_store(struct kobject *kobj, struct attribute *attr,
 	rc = kstrtoul(buffer, 10, &val);
 	if (rc)
 		return rc;
-	if (val < 0 || val > 1)
+	if (val > 1)
 		return -ERANGE;
 
 	/* opposite senses */
-- 
2.1.0

Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] Staging: lustre: lproc_osc: Remove irrelevant check

[Shivani Bhardwaj]

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 06:47:45PM +0530, Shivani Bhardwaj wrote:
>> The variable val has been declared as unsigned long and thus the check
>> for negative values should be removed from it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shivani Bhardwaj <shivanib134@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/lproc_osc.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/lproc_osc.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/lproc_osc.c
>> index 053d508..c4d44e7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/lproc_osc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/lproc_osc.c
>> @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ static ssize_t active_store(struct kobject *kobj, struct attribute *attr,
>>       rc = kstrtoul(buffer, 10, &val);
>>       if (rc)
>>               return rc;
>> -     if (val < 0 || val > 1)
>> +     if (val > 1)
>>               return -ERANGE;
>
> Doesn't apply as I added your other patch, can you provide a fix-up on
> top of that for this instead?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

Yes, I'll do that.
Thank you