From: "Manish Katiyar" Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext3 : Remove redundant condition in ext3_free_blocks_sb() Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 00:40:32 +0530 Message-ID: References: <20080531190527.GG28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org To: "Al Viro" Return-path: Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.142.185]:30118 "EHLO ti-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754614AbYEaTKf (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 May 2008 15:10:35 -0400 Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b6so129083tic.23 for ; Sat, 31 May 2008 12:10:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20080531190527.GG28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Al Viro wrote: > On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 12:26:41AM +0530, Manish Katiyar wrote: >> For two unsigned values the check "block+count < block" is always >> false. Thus the below patch removes that condition. > > Really? Always? > > unsigned block = 1; > unsigned count = ~0U; > > What will be the value and type of block + count? What will be the > value of block + count < block? Oooops....my bad, but I doubt if we pass such values in ext* code anywhere. > -- Thanks & Regards, ******************************************** Manish Katiyar ( http://mkatiyar.googlepages.com ) 3rd Floor, Fair Winds Block EGL Software Park Off Intermediate Ring Road Bangalore 560071, India ***********************************************