2008-02-16 19:38:29

by Roel Kluin

Subject: [PATCH] fs/ufs/util.h 2nd parameter of fs32_to_cpu is not boolean

from: fs/befs/endian.h +33
static inline u32
fs32_to_cpu(const struct super_block *sb, fs32 n)
{
if (BEFS_SB(sb)->byte_order == BEFS_BYTESEX_LE)
return le32_to_cpu((__force __le32)n);
else
return be32_to_cpu((__force __be32)n);
}

The 2nd parameter is not boolean
---
Test the return value, rather than passing a boolean

Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <[email protected]>
---
diff --git a/fs/ufs/util.h b/fs/ufs/util.h
index b26fc4d..23ceed8 100644
--- a/fs/ufs/util.h
+++ b/fs/ufs/util.h
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ ufs_set_fs_state(struct super_block *sb, struct ufs_super_block_first *usb1,
{
switch (UFS_SB(sb)->s_flags & UFS_ST_MASK) {
case UFS_ST_SUNOS:
- if (fs32_to_cpu(sb, usb3->fs_postblformat == UFS_42POSTBLFMT)) {
+ if (fs32_to_cpu(sb, usb3->fs_postblformat) == UFS_42POSTBLFMT) {
usb1->fs_u0.fs_sun.fs_state = cpu_to_fs32(sb, value);
break;
}

2008-02-16 20:16:14

by Evgeniy Dushistov

Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/ufs/util.h 2nd parameter of fs32_to_cpu is not boolean

On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 08:38:15PM +0100, Roel Kluin wrote:
> from: fs/befs/endian.h +33
> static inline u32
> fs32_to_cpu(const struct super_block *sb, fs32 n)
> {
> if (BEFS_SB(sb)->byte_order == BEFS_BYTESEX_LE)
> return le32_to_cpu((__force __le32)n);
> else
> return be32_to_cpu((__force __be32)n);
> }
>
> The 2nd parameter is not boolean
> ---
> Test the return value, rather than passing a boolean
>
> Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <[email protected]>
> ---
> diff --git a/fs/ufs/util.h b/fs/ufs/util.h
> index b26fc4d..23ceed8 100644
> --- a/fs/ufs/util.h
> +++ b/fs/ufs/util.h
> @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ ufs_set_fs_state(struct super_block *sb, struct ufs_super_block_first *usb1,
> {
> switch (UFS_SB(sb)->s_flags & UFS_ST_MASK) {
> case UFS_ST_SUNOS:
> - if (fs32_to_cpu(sb, usb3->fs_postblformat == UFS_42POSTBLFMT)) {
> + if (fs32_to_cpu(sb, usb3->fs_postblformat) == UFS_42POSTBLFMT) {
> usb1->fs_u0.fs_sun.fs_state = cpu_to_fs32(sb, value);
> break;
> }

Yeah, in origin patch, which introduced this code was the similar
misprint. It is sad that after review only one was fixed,
and the second go to mainline.

Acked-by: Evgeniy Dushistov <[email protected]>

--
/Evgeniy