Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.20\))
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: remove set but rewrite variables
From:   =?utf-8?B?0JHQu9Cw0LPQvtC00LDRgNC10L3QutC+INCQ0YDRgtGR0Lw=?= 
        <artem.blagodarenko@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <c3e07a98-7eff-c761-4a99-78b8c5b73f7d@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 May 2021 12:18:20 +0300
Cc:     Tian Tao <tiantao6@hisilicon.com>,
        "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CCD53C8F-7A5B-40B4-9FB8-6D17F352AAFD@gmail.com>
References: <1621220165-11849-1-git-send-email-tiantao6@hisilicon.com>
 <B5603A0A-D24E-46A2-94B6-79451E39141C@gmail.com>
 <c3e07a98-7eff-c761-4a99-78b8c5b73f7d@huawei.com>
To:     "tiantao (H)" <tiantao6@huawei.com>
Precedence: bulk

It looks like it is always reset just after =E2=80=9Cagain:=E2=80=9D  =
label. So, yes, your fix does not change the logic.

Feel free to add:
Reviewed-by: Artem Blagodarenko <artem.blagodarenko@gmail.com>

Best regards,
Artem Blagodarenko
> On 17 May 2021, at 11:44, tiantao (H) <tiantao6@huawei.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> =E5=9C=A8 2021/5/17 16:05, =D0=91=D0=BB=D0=B0=D0=B3=D0=BE=D0=B4=D0=B0=D1=
=80=D0=B5=D0=BD=D0=BA=D0=BE =D0=90=D1=80=D1=82=D1=91=D0=BC =E5=86=99=E9=81=
=93:
>>=20
>>> On 17 May 2021, at 05:56, Tian Tao <tiantao6@hisilicon.com> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> In line 2500 of the ext4_dx_add_entry function, the at variable is
>>> assigned but not used, and it is reassigned in line 2449, so delete
>>> the assignment of the at variable in line 2500.
>>>=20
>>> Signed-off-by: Tian Tao <tiantao6@hisilicon.com>
>>> ---
>>> fs/ext4/namei.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>=20
>>> diff --git a/fs/ext4/namei.c b/fs/ext4/namei.c
>>> index afb9d05..18bbf15 100644
>>> --- a/fs/ext4/namei.c
>>> +++ b/fs/ext4/namei.c
>>> @@ -2497,7 +2497,7 @@ static int ext4_dx_add_entry(handle_t *handle, =
struct ext4_filename *fname,
>>>=20
>>> 			/* Which index block gets the new entry? */
>>> 			if (at - entries >=3D icount1) {
>>> -				frame->at =3D at =3D at - entries - =
icount1 + entries2;
>>> +				frame->at =3D at - entries - icount1 + =
entries2;
>>> 				frame->entries =3D entries =3D entries2;
>>> 				swap(frame->bh, bh2);
>>> 			}
>>> --=20
>>> 2.7.4
>>>=20
>>=20
>> Hello Tian,
>>=20
>> Thank you for the patch.
>>=20
>> Please, clarify, do you think the logic not changed after you patch =
if "while (frame > frames) {=E2=80=9C loop is not executed or terminated =
by =E2=80=9Cbreak:=E2=80=9D in " if (dx_get_count((frame - 1)->entries) =
< ...=E2=80=9C block?
>=20
> yes, it's reported by svace. and I check the code it's not change the =
logic. myabe I was wrong:-P
>=20
>> Also I am not sure code lines numbers in the description are useful =
for future readers, because they can be changed.
> I can update the commit message at v2.
>>=20
>> Thank you..