2012-02-13 20:50:22

by Jesper Juhl

Subject: [PATCH] XFS; xfs_trans_add_item() - don't assign in ASSERT() when compare is intended

It looks to me like the two ASSERT()s in xfs_trans_add_item() really
want to do a compare (==) rather than assignment (=).
This patch changes it from the former to the latter.

I must admit though, that I don't know this code well and have only
compile tested this change. But if assignment is really intended it
really seems strange to do it as part of an ASSERT...

Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
---
fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c | 4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c
index 329b06a..7adcdf1 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c
@@ -1151,8 +1151,8 @@ xfs_trans_add_item(
{
struct xfs_log_item_desc *lidp;

- ASSERT(lip->li_mountp = tp->t_mountp);
- ASSERT(lip->li_ailp = tp->t_mountp->m_ail);
+ ASSERT(lip->li_mountp == tp->t_mountp);
+ ASSERT(lip->li_ailp == tp->t_mountp->m_ail);

lidp = kmem_zone_zalloc(xfs_log_item_desc_zone, KM_SLEEP | KM_NOFS);

--
1.7.9


--
Jesper Juhl <[email protected]> http://www.chaosbits.net/
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please.

2012-02-13 20:51:53

by Jesper Juhl

Subject: Re: [PATCH] XFS; xfs_trans_add_item() - don't assign in ASSERT() when compare is intended

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012, Jesper Juhl wrote:

> It looks to me like the two ASSERT()s in xfs_trans_add_item() really
> want to do a compare (==) rather than assignment (=).
> This patch changes it from the former to the latter.
>
Ehh, I mean from the latter to the former, of course.. :-/

> I must admit though, that I don't know this code well and have only
> compile tested this change. But if assignment is really intended it
> really seems strange to do it as part of an ASSERT...
>
> Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c | 4 ++--
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c
> index 329b06a..7adcdf1 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c
> @@ -1151,8 +1151,8 @@ xfs_trans_add_item(
> {
> struct xfs_log_item_desc *lidp;
>
> - ASSERT(lip->li_mountp = tp->t_mountp);
> - ASSERT(lip->li_ailp = tp->t_mountp->m_ail);
> + ASSERT(lip->li_mountp == tp->t_mountp);
> + ASSERT(lip->li_ailp == tp->t_mountp->m_ail);
>
> lidp = kmem_zone_zalloc(xfs_log_item_desc_zone, KM_SLEEP | KM_NOFS);
>
>

--
Jesper Juhl <[email protected]> http://www.chaosbits.net/
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please.

2012-02-13 21:10:29

by Ben Myers

Subject: Re: [PATCH] XFS; xfs_trans_add_item() - don't assign in ASSERT() when compare is intended

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 09:51:05PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> It looks to me like the two ASSERT()s in xfs_trans_add_item() really
> want to do a compare (==) rather than assignment (=).
> This patch changes it from the former to the latter.
latter former

I'll update your comment as you suggested.

> I must admit though, that I don't know this code well and have only
> compile tested this change. But if assignment is really intended it
> really seems strange to do it as part of an ASSERT...
>
> Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c | 4 ++--
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c
> index 329b06a..7adcdf1 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c
> @@ -1151,8 +1151,8 @@ xfs_trans_add_item(
> {
> struct xfs_log_item_desc *lidp;
>
> - ASSERT(lip->li_mountp = tp->t_mountp);
> - ASSERT(lip->li_ailp = tp->t_mountp->m_ail);
> + ASSERT(lip->li_mountp == tp->t_mountp);
> + ASSERT(lip->li_ailp == tp->t_mountp->m_ail);

Yeah, nice find... ;)
Reviewed-by: Ben Myers <[email protected]>