Since md is freed before the do-while checks it,
it's better to change it to while(1).
Signed-off-by: Shen Feng <[email protected]>
---
fs/ext4/mballoc.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
index 42553f6..063f820 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
@@ -2572,7 +2572,7 @@ ext4_mb_free_committed_blocks(struct super_block *sb)
kfree(md);
ext4_mb_release_desc(&e4b);
- } while (md);
+ } while (1);
mb_debug("freed %u blocks in %u structures\n", count, count2);
}
--
1.5.4.5
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:55:45AM +0800, Shen Feng wrote:
>
> Since md is freed before the do-while checks it,
> it's better to change it to while(1).
>
> Signed-off-by: Shen Feng <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/ext4/mballoc.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> index 42553f6..063f820 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> @@ -2572,7 +2572,7 @@ ext4_mb_free_committed_blocks(struct super_block *sb)
> kfree(md);
> ext4_mb_release_desc(&e4b);
>
> - } while (md);
> + } while (1);
>
> mb_debug("freed %u blocks in %u structures\n", count, count2);
> }
> --
> 1.5.4.5
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:55:45AM +0800, Shen Feng wrote:
>
> Since md is freed before the do-while checks it,
> it's better to change it to while(1).
This actually isn't a bug, since there is no problem checking a
pointer that has been freed; its only *dereferencing* a pointer which
is bad. That being said, md is never NULL at the end of the loop,
since in the middle of the loop is the only break condition:
if (md == NULL)
break;
So the patch saves a tiny amount of compiled code, but it isn't really
a fix in any way.
That being said, if we're going to make this sort of change, my
preference would be to use the more common C idiom:
while (1) {
...
}
as opposed to
do {
...
} while (1);
The former makes it quite clear that any exit from the loop is not
going to be coming from loop construct itself, but from any embedded
break statements inside the loop construct
Regards,
- Ted
>> Since md is freed before the do-while checks it,
>> it's better to change it to while(1).
>
> This actually isn't a bug, since there is no problem checking a
> pointer that has been freed; its only *dereferencing* a pointer which
> is bad. That being said, md is never NULL at the end of the loop,
> since in the middle of the loop is the only break condition:
>
> if (md == NULL)
> break;
>
> So the patch saves a tiny amount of compiled code, but it isn't really
> a fix in any way.
>
> That being said, if we're going to make this sort of change, my
> preference would be to use the more common C idiom:
>
> while (1) {
> ...
> }
>
> as opposed to
>
> do {
> ...
> } while (1);
>
> The former makes it quite clear that any exit from the loop is not
> going to be coming from loop construct itself, but from any embedded
> break statements inside the loop construct
>
Yes. You are right. Revise the patch as you suggested.
Signed-off-by: Shen Feng <[email protected]>
---
fs/ext4/mballoc.c | 4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
index c9900aa..bd6cf22 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
@@ -2521,7 +2521,7 @@ ext4_mb_free_committed_blocks(struct super_block *sb)
return;
/* there is committed blocks to be freed yet */
- do {
+ while (1) {
/* get next array of blocks */
md = NULL;
spin_lock(&sbi->s_md_lock);
@@ -2561,7 +2561,7 @@ ext4_mb_free_committed_blocks(struct super_block *sb)
kfree(md);
ext4_mb_release_desc(&e4b);
- } while (md);
+ }
mb_debug("freed %u blocks in %u structures\n", count, count2);
}
-- 1.5.4.5