Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley
        Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United
        Kingdom.
        Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
From:   David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANT5p=pNFpEj0p+njYw3sVdq9CKgsTdh29Gj6iYDOsMN0ocj1Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANT5p=pNFpEj0p+njYw3sVdq9CKgsTdh29Gj6iYDOsMN0ocj1Q@mail.gmail.com> <2811951.1684766430@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
To:     Shyam Prasad N <nspmangalore@gmail.com>
Cc:     dhowells@redhat.com, Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>,
        Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>,
        Rohith Surabattula <rohiths.msft@gmail.com>,
        Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>,
        Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
        linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cifs: Fix cifs_limit_bvec_subset() to correctly check the maxmimum size
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2818726.1684779061.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Mon, 22 May 2023 19:11:01 +0100
Message-ID: <2818727.1684779061@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

Shyam Prasad N <nspmangalore@gmail.com> wrote:

> > +               max_size -= len;
> 
> Shouldn't this decrement happen below, after the span has been
> compared with max_size?

It probably doesn't matter.  The compiler is free to move it around, but yes
that and ix++ can both be moved down.

David