X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0-r929098 (2010-03-30) on oss.sgi.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.4.0-r929098 Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q1DKoO4U041505 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:50:24 -0600 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1329166220-04cb6c225e87a740001-NocioJ Received: from swampdragon.chaosbits.net (swampdragon.chaosbits.net [90.184.90.115]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id WjWqsHj7NfSRLlJB; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:50:21 -0800 (PST) X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: jj@chaosbits.net X-Barracuda-Apparent-Source-IP: 90.184.90.115 Received: by swampdragon.chaosbits.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F31EF9403D; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:51:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by swampdragon.chaosbits.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F15B99403B; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:51:05 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:51:05 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Juhl To: xfs@oss.sgi.com cc: xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alex Elder , Ben Myers Subject: [PATCH] XFS; xfs_trans_add_item() - don't assign in ASSERT() when compare is intended Message-ID: X-ASG-Orig-Subj: [PATCH] XFS; xfs_trans_add_item() - don't assign in ASSERT() when compare is intended User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Barracuda-Connect: swampdragon.chaosbits.net[90.184.90.115] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1329166221 X-Barracuda-URL: http://192.48.176.15:80/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at sgi.com X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=1.3 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.88461 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- It looks to me like the two ASSERT()s in xfs_trans_add_item() really want to do a compare (==) rather than assignment (=). This patch changes it from the former to the latter. I must admit though, that I don't know this code well and have only compile tested this change. But if assignment is really intended it really seems strange to do it as part of an ASSERT... Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl --- fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c index 329b06a..7adcdf1 100644 --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c @@ -1151,8 +1151,8 @@ xfs_trans_add_item( { struct xfs_log_item_desc *lidp; - ASSERT(lip->li_mountp = tp->t_mountp); - ASSERT(lip->li_ailp = tp->t_mountp->m_ail); + ASSERT(lip->li_mountp == tp->t_mountp); + ASSERT(lip->li_ailp == tp->t_mountp->m_ail); lidp = kmem_zone_zalloc(xfs_log_item_desc_zone, KM_SLEEP | KM_NOFS); -- 1.7.9 -- Jesper Juhl http://www.chaosbits.net/ Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please.