From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] spufs: fix another off-by-one bug in mbox_read From: Will Schmidt To: Arnd Bergmann In-Reply-To: <200610242107.44115.arnd@arndb.de> References: <20061024160140.452484000@arndb.de> <20061024160406.923275000@arndb.de> <84144f020610241142y2c86485dj898f555174803577@mail.gmail.com> <200610242107.44115.arnd@arndb.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:53:22 -0500 Message-Id: <1161719603.8946.84.camel@farscape> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Pekka Enberg , Paul Mackerras , cbe-oss-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: will_schmidt@vnet.ibm.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2006-24-10 at 21:07 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 24 October 2006 20:42, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > On 10/24/06, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > spu_acquire(ctx); > > > - for (count = 0; count <= len; count += 4, udata++) { > > > + for (count = 0; (count + 4) <= len; count += 4, udata++) { > > > > Wouldn't this be more obvious as > > > > for (count = 0, count < (len / 4); count++, udata++) { > > > > And then do count * 4 if you need the actual index somewhere. Hmm? > > Count is the return value from a write() file operation. I find it > more readable to update that every time I do one put_user(), to > the exact value, than calculating the return code later. Hey Arnd, just curiosity.. What was the behavior before this patch? just leaving a few (0 - 3) characters behind? > > Arnd <>< > _______________________________________________ > Linuxppc-dev mailing list > Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org > https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev