Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754199AbYLBXSW (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2008 18:18:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752082AbYLBXSM (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2008 18:18:12 -0500 Received: from mail.tmr.com ([64.65.253.246]:43946 "EHLO partygirl.tmr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750980AbYLBXSL (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2008 18:18:11 -0500 Message-ID: <4935C219.3070006@tmr.com> Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:17:45 -0500 From: Bill Davidsen Organization: TMR Associates Inc, Schenectady NY User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.18) Gecko/20081112 Fedora/1.1.13-1.fc9 pango-text SeaMonkey/1.1.13 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Theodore Tso , Bill Davidsen , roel kluin , adilger@sun.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ext3, ext4: do_split() fix loop, with obvious unsigned wrap References: <49343AD9.4020606@gmail.com> <20081202132441.GC16172@mit.edu> <49356B96.7070900@tmr.com> <20081202215758.GE20858@mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <20081202215758.GE20858@mit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1513 Lines: 39 Theodore Tso wrote: > On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 12:08:38PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote: > >> Sorry, you are reading it wrong, the i values inside the loop are >> identical to those in the original. The value of i starts at count, and >> the test comes *before* the value is used inside the loop. The values of >> i inside the loop start at count-1 and go to zero, just as it did in the >> original. That's why the "i--" is there, the test is on the >> unincremented value range count to one, but the value inside the loop is >> correct (or at least is the same as the original patch). >> > > You're right; my bad. But with something like this: > > >>>> + for (i = count; i--; ) { >>>> > > ...where there is no third part of the for loop, and a decrement in > the second part of the loop, just for clarity's sake, it's much better > to write it as a while loop. > I seriously disagree on that, writing it as a for makes it totally clear that the index initialization is part of the loop. I know, looks funny, not the way we have always done it, not invented here... -- Bill Davidsen "Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/