From: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Btrfs: fix bitwise vs logical condition
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:00:50 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120120160050.GA25145@zambezi.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120120152129.GO3356@mwanda>
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 06:21:29PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 04:24:37PM +0200, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> > @@ -2375,12 +2375,11 @@ static int should_balance_chunk(struct btrfs_root *root,
> > struct btrfs_balance_control *bctl = root->fs_info->balance_ctl;
> > struct btrfs_balance_args *bargs = NULL;
> > u64 chunk_type = btrfs_chunk_type(leaf, chunk);
> > + u64 mask = chunk_type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_TYPE_MASK;
> >
> > /* type filter */
> > - if (!((chunk_type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_TYPE_MASK) &
> > - (bctl->flags & BTRFS_BALANCE_TYPE_MASK))) {
> > + if (((bctl->flags & BTRFS_BALANCE_TYPE_MASK) & mask) != mask)
>
> I don't know if it matters, but semantically this is not
> equivalent to the original. If mask has no flags set then this will
> pass. This says that every flag in mask but has to be set in
> ->flags but in the original code, only one needed to be.
Yeah, that's why I said "we can strengthen that check".
>
> The original code was equivalent to:
> if (!(chunk_type & bctl->flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_TYPE_MASK &
> BTRFS_BALANCE_TYPE_MASK)) {...
>
> It's weird that we have BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_TYPE_MASK and
> BTRFS_BALANCE_TYPE_MASK which are the same except that the bitfields
> have been renamed. Can't we just reuse the first definition?
>
> But really, if this isn't a bug, then I don't care. The original is
> fine, or whatever you choose.
This is not a bug.
Thanks,
Ilya
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-20 16:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-20 7:54 [patch] Btrfs: fix bitwise vs logical condition Dan Carpenter
2012-01-20 14:24 ` Ilya Dryomov
2012-01-20 15:21 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-01-20 16:00 ` Ilya Dryomov [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120120160050.GA25145@zambezi.lan \
--to=idryomov@gmail.com \
--cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).