From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/minix: bugfix, number of indirect block ptrs per block depends on block size Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 17:01:14 +0100 Message-ID: <20100527160114.GH31073@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <4BFCF1EB.20709@cs.vu.nl> <20100526215442.GB3316@quack.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Erik van der Kouwe , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Fam Zheng To: Jan Kara Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:41075 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753897Ab0E0QBS (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 May 2010 12:01:18 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100526215442.GB3316@quack.suse.cz> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:54:43PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > - } else if ((block -= 7) < 256) { > > - offsets[n++] = 7; > > + } else if ((block -= DIRCOUNT) < INDIRCOUNT(sb)) { > This modification of 'block' in the if condition is a blatant violation > of the kernel coding style. The hell it is. [...said the guy who'd written it that way in the first place] It _is_ idiomatic C for that kind of thing ("we've got several adjacent ranges, find which one had we hit and how far from its start").