fix warnings:
fs/udf/super.c:1320:24: warning: symbol 'bh' shadows an earlier one
fs/udf/super.c:1240:21: originally declared here
fs/udf/super.c:1583:4: warning: symbol 'i' shadows an earlier one
fs/udf/super.c:1418:6: originally declared here
fs/udf/super.c:1585:4: warning: symbol 'i' shadows an earlier one
fs/udf/super.c:1418:6: originally declared here
fs/udf/super.c:1658:4: warning: symbol 'i' shadows an earlier one
fs/udf/super.c:1648:6: originally declared here
fs/udf/super.c:1660:4: warning: symbol 'i' shadows an earlier one
fs/udf/super.c:1648:6: originally declared here
fs/udf/super.c:450:6: warning: symbol 'udf_write_super' was not declared. Should it be static?
Signed-off-by: Marcin Slusarz <[email protected]>
CC: Ben Fennema <[email protected]>
---
fs/udf/super.c | 15 +++++++--------
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/udf/super.c b/fs/udf/super.c
index 4360c7a..9f82b5a 100644
--- a/fs/udf/super.c
+++ b/fs/udf/super.c
@@ -447,7 +447,7 @@ static int udf_parse_options(char *options, struct udf_options *uopt)
return 1;
}
-void udf_write_super(struct super_block *sb)
+static void udf_write_super(struct super_block *sb)
{
lock_kernel();
@@ -1317,7 +1317,6 @@ static int udf_load_partition(struct super_block *sb, kernel_lb_addr *fileset)
UDF_SB_TYPEVIRT(sb, i).s_num_entries =
(UDF_SB_VAT(sb)->i_size - 36) >> 2;
} else if (UDF_SB_PARTTYPE(sb, i) == UDF_VIRTUAL_MAP20) {
- struct buffer_head *bh = NULL;
uint32_t pos;
pos = udf_block_map(UDF_SB_VAT(sb), 0);
@@ -1415,7 +1414,7 @@ static void udf_close_lvid(struct super_block *sb)
*/
static int udf_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *options, int silent)
{
- int i;
+ int idx;
struct inode *inode = NULL;
struct udf_options uopt;
kernel_lb_addr rootdir, fileset;
@@ -1584,8 +1583,8 @@ error_out:
if (UDF_SB_PARTFLAGS(sb, UDF_SB_PARTITION(sb)) & UDF_PART_FLAG_FREED_BITMAP)
UDF_SB_FREE_BITMAP(sb,UDF_SB_PARTITION(sb), s_fspace);
if (UDF_SB_PARTTYPE(sb, UDF_SB_PARTITION(sb)) == UDF_SPARABLE_MAP15) {
- for (i = 0; i < 4; i++)
- brelse(UDF_SB_TYPESPAR(sb, UDF_SB_PARTITION(sb)).s_spar_map[i]);
+ for (idx = 0; idx < 4; idx++)
+ brelse(UDF_SB_TYPESPAR(sb, UDF_SB_PARTITION(sb)).s_spar_map[idx]);
}
}
#ifdef CONFIG_UDF_NLS
@@ -1645,7 +1644,7 @@ void udf_warning(struct super_block *sb, const char *function,
*/
static void udf_put_super(struct super_block *sb)
{
- int i;
+ int idx;
if (UDF_SB_VAT(sb))
iput(UDF_SB_VAT(sb));
@@ -1659,8 +1658,8 @@ static void udf_put_super(struct super_block *sb)
if (UDF_SB_PARTFLAGS(sb, UDF_SB_PARTITION(sb)) & UDF_PART_FLAG_FREED_BITMAP)
UDF_SB_FREE_BITMAP(sb,UDF_SB_PARTITION(sb), s_fspace);
if (UDF_SB_PARTTYPE(sb, UDF_SB_PARTITION(sb)) == UDF_SPARABLE_MAP15) {
- for (i = 0; i < 4; i++)
- brelse(UDF_SB_TYPESPAR(sb, UDF_SB_PARTITION(sb)).s_spar_map[i]);
+ for (idx = 0; idx < 4; idx++)
+ brelse(UDF_SB_TYPESPAR(sb, UDF_SB_PARTITION(sb)).s_spar_map[idx]);
}
}
#ifdef CONFIG_UDF_NLS
--
1.5.3.4
> fix warnings:
> fs/udf/super.c:1320:24: warning: symbol 'bh' shadows an earlier one
> fs/udf/super.c:1240:21: originally declared here
> fs/udf/super.c:1583:4: warning: symbol 'i' shadows an earlier one
> fs/udf/super.c:1418:6: originally declared here
> fs/udf/super.c:1585:4: warning: symbol 'i' shadows an earlier one
> fs/udf/super.c:1418:6: originally declared here
> fs/udf/super.c:1658:4: warning: symbol 'i' shadows an earlier one
> fs/udf/super.c:1648:6: originally declared here
> fs/udf/super.c:1660:4: warning: symbol 'i' shadows an earlier one
> fs/udf/super.c:1648:6: originally declared here
> fs/udf/super.c:450:6: warning: symbol 'udf_write_super' was not declared. Should it be static?
>
> Signed-off-by: Marcin Slusarz <[email protected]>
> CC: Ben Fennema <[email protected]>
Thanks for the patch. The 'bh' change is fine. The problems with 'i'
should be solved differently I think. Those functions UDF_SB_FREE,
UDF_SB_ALLOC_PARTMAPS should be functions and not macros. Please convert
those to either inline functions if they are small or to regular
functions if they are larger. It won't be completely trivial because of
the hackery e.g. in UDF_SB_ALLOC_BITMAP. It gets an argument meaning on
which struct member something should be performed. But for example in
the UDF_SB_ALLOC_BITMAP case you can simply make the function return the
pointer to allocated and initialized space and the caller would assign
it to a proper element of the superblock. This would help the overall
code quality of UDF (which is sadly quite poor). Thanks.
Honza
> ---
> fs/udf/super.c | 15 +++++++--------
> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/udf/super.c b/fs/udf/super.c
> index 4360c7a..9f82b5a 100644
> --- a/fs/udf/super.c
> +++ b/fs/udf/super.c
> @@ -447,7 +447,7 @@ static int udf_parse_options(char *options, struct udf_options *uopt)
> return 1;
> }
>
> -void udf_write_super(struct super_block *sb)
> +static void udf_write_super(struct super_block *sb)
> {
> lock_kernel();
>
> @@ -1317,7 +1317,6 @@ static int udf_load_partition(struct super_block *sb, kernel_lb_addr *fileset)
> UDF_SB_TYPEVIRT(sb, i).s_num_entries =
> (UDF_SB_VAT(sb)->i_size - 36) >> 2;
> } else if (UDF_SB_PARTTYPE(sb, i) == UDF_VIRTUAL_MAP20) {
> - struct buffer_head *bh = NULL;
> uint32_t pos;
>
> pos = udf_block_map(UDF_SB_VAT(sb), 0);
> @@ -1415,7 +1414,7 @@ static void udf_close_lvid(struct super_block *sb)
> */
> static int udf_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *options, int silent)
> {
> - int i;
> + int idx;
> struct inode *inode = NULL;
> struct udf_options uopt;
> kernel_lb_addr rootdir, fileset;
> @@ -1584,8 +1583,8 @@ error_out:
> if (UDF_SB_PARTFLAGS(sb, UDF_SB_PARTITION(sb)) & UDF_PART_FLAG_FREED_BITMAP)
> UDF_SB_FREE_BITMAP(sb,UDF_SB_PARTITION(sb), s_fspace);
> if (UDF_SB_PARTTYPE(sb, UDF_SB_PARTITION(sb)) == UDF_SPARABLE_MAP15) {
> - for (i = 0; i < 4; i++)
> - brelse(UDF_SB_TYPESPAR(sb, UDF_SB_PARTITION(sb)).s_spar_map[i]);
> + for (idx = 0; idx < 4; idx++)
> + brelse(UDF_SB_TYPESPAR(sb, UDF_SB_PARTITION(sb)).s_spar_map[idx]);
> }
> }
> #ifdef CONFIG_UDF_NLS
> @@ -1645,7 +1644,7 @@ void udf_warning(struct super_block *sb, const char *function,
> */
> static void udf_put_super(struct super_block *sb)
> {
> - int i;
> + int idx;
>
> if (UDF_SB_VAT(sb))
> iput(UDF_SB_VAT(sb));
> @@ -1659,8 +1658,8 @@ static void udf_put_super(struct super_block *sb)
> if (UDF_SB_PARTFLAGS(sb, UDF_SB_PARTITION(sb)) & UDF_PART_FLAG_FREED_BITMAP)
> UDF_SB_FREE_BITMAP(sb,UDF_SB_PARTITION(sb), s_fspace);
> if (UDF_SB_PARTTYPE(sb, UDF_SB_PARTITION(sb)) == UDF_SPARABLE_MAP15) {
> - for (i = 0; i < 4; i++)
> - brelse(UDF_SB_TYPESPAR(sb, UDF_SB_PARTITION(sb)).s_spar_map[i]);
> + for (idx = 0; idx < 4; idx++)
> + brelse(UDF_SB_TYPESPAR(sb, UDF_SB_PARTITION(sb)).s_spar_map[idx]);
> }
> }
> #ifdef CONFIG_UDF_NLS
> --
> 1.5.3.4
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Jan Kara <[email protected]>
SuSE CR Labs
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 05:50:17PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > fix warnings:
> > fs/udf/super.c:1320:24: warning: symbol 'bh' shadows an earlier one
> > fs/udf/super.c:1240:21: originally declared here
> > fs/udf/super.c:1583:4: warning: symbol 'i' shadows an earlier one
> > fs/udf/super.c:1418:6: originally declared here
> > fs/udf/super.c:1585:4: warning: symbol 'i' shadows an earlier one
> > fs/udf/super.c:1418:6: originally declared here
> > fs/udf/super.c:1658:4: warning: symbol 'i' shadows an earlier one
> > fs/udf/super.c:1648:6: originally declared here
> > fs/udf/super.c:1660:4: warning: symbol 'i' shadows an earlier one
> > fs/udf/super.c:1648:6: originally declared here
> > fs/udf/super.c:450:6: warning: symbol 'udf_write_super' was not declared. Should it be static?
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Marcin Slusarz <[email protected]>
> > CC: Ben Fennema <[email protected]>
> Thanks for the patch. The 'bh' change is fine. The problems with 'i'
> should be solved differently I think. Those functions UDF_SB_FREE,
> UDF_SB_ALLOC_PARTMAPS should be functions and not macros. Please convert
> those to either inline functions if they are small or to regular
> functions if they are larger. It won't be completely trivial because of
> the hackery e.g. in UDF_SB_ALLOC_BITMAP. It gets an argument meaning on
> which struct member something should be performed. But for example in
> the UDF_SB_ALLOC_BITMAP case you can simply make the function return the
> pointer to allocated and initialized space and the caller would assign
> it to a proper element of the superblock.
Ok, I'll try to do it.
> This would help the overall
> code quality of UDF (which is sadly quite poor).
If you have other suggestions how to clean up this code, let me know.
I'll see what I can do with them ;)
Marcin
On Wed 19-12-07 19:35:14, Marcin Slusarz wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 05:50:17PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > fix warnings:
> > > fs/udf/super.c:1320:24: warning: symbol 'bh' shadows an earlier one
> > > fs/udf/super.c:1240:21: originally declared here
> > > fs/udf/super.c:1583:4: warning: symbol 'i' shadows an earlier one
> > > fs/udf/super.c:1418:6: originally declared here
> > > fs/udf/super.c:1585:4: warning: symbol 'i' shadows an earlier one
> > > fs/udf/super.c:1418:6: originally declared here
> > > fs/udf/super.c:1658:4: warning: symbol 'i' shadows an earlier one
> > > fs/udf/super.c:1648:6: originally declared here
> > > fs/udf/super.c:1660:4: warning: symbol 'i' shadows an earlier one
> > > fs/udf/super.c:1648:6: originally declared here
> > > fs/udf/super.c:450:6: warning: symbol 'udf_write_super' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Marcin Slusarz <[email protected]>
> > > CC: Ben Fennema <[email protected]>
> > Thanks for the patch. The 'bh' change is fine. The problems with 'i'
> > should be solved differently I think. Those functions UDF_SB_FREE,
> > UDF_SB_ALLOC_PARTMAPS should be functions and not macros. Please convert
> > those to either inline functions if they are small or to regular
> > functions if they are larger. It won't be completely trivial because of
> > the hackery e.g. in UDF_SB_ALLOC_BITMAP. It gets an argument meaning on
> > which struct member something should be performed. But for example in
> > the UDF_SB_ALLOC_BITMAP case you can simply make the function return the
> > pointer to allocated and initialized space and the caller would assign
> > it to a proper element of the superblock.
> Ok, I'll try to do it.
Thanks.
> > This would help the overall
> > code quality of UDF (which is sadly quite poor).
> If you have other suggestions how to clean up this code, let me know.
> I'll see what I can do with them ;)
Hmm, it's hard to formulate precisely. It's nothing particular but all in
all the code is simply hard to read - all those strange names of variables,
unusual sideeffects of functions, ... But one specific problem I'm aware of
is the lack of error handling so in case of IO error or filesystem
corruption results are quite spectacular (kernel crash, etc.).
Honza
--
Jan Kara <[email protected]>
SUSE Labs, CR