xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfsprogs: useless code blocks

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, nathans@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: xfsprogs: useless code blocks
From: Jan Tulak <jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 05:18:54 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20150721063738.GA7943@dastard>
References: <2035333009.511763.1437398166766.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <1213913978.543970.1437400666553.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <20150721063738.GA7943@dastard>
Thread-index: y7W12aL7ONQTl2kTxyYKktJhr5cY2A==
Thread-topic: xfsprogs: useless code blocks
Hi Nathan,
I'm sending this also to you, as it is about one old your patch
you posted to xfsprogs. Can you look at the two lines, if you
recall their purpose? :-)

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Chinner" <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Jan Tulak" <jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "xfs-oss" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 8:37:38 AM
> Subject: Re: xfsprogs: useless code blocks
> 
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 09:57:46AM -0400, Jan Tulak wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I found these useless bits of code in xfsprogs:
> > 
> > repair/incore_ino.c:575-576:
> > if (ino_rec->ino_startnum == 0)
> >   ino_rec = ino_rec;
> > 
> > This one is pretty clear. It is there since 2001 (commit 2bd0ea187
> > by nathans@xxxxxxx, who didn't wrote here since 2006, so I find
> 
> nathans@xxxxxxxxxx will get you that same person ;)
> 
> > CC-ing him useless). It looks like a forgotten code which doesn't
> > do anything, but I ask in case it is a hidden bug.
> 
> Who knows? It came from the Irix code base by the look of it, so
> maybe it was just working around a compiler bug?
> 

All right, I'm adding him, we will see.

> > And:
> > 
> > db/check.c:3035, 3037: Always true expression, as be32_to_cpu()
> > translates to __u32 type and unsigned can't be less than zero.
> > 
> > be32_to_cpu(free->hdr.nvalid) < 0 ||
> 
> The old endian conversion stuff in userspace needed that. When we
> converted it to the same as the kernel macros, we didn't change any
> of the logic. gcc isn't warning about this on x86-64, so in general
> signed/unsigned stuff goes unnoticed.
> 

I found it during my OS X porting - clang complains. So I will remove it,
although I will wait at first if Nathan has anything to say about the
ino_rec self-assignment.

Cheers,
Jan
-- 
Jan Tulak
jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>