On 02/07/16 09:05, Salah Triki wrote: > The only caller of befs_find_brun_direct is befs_fblock2brun, which > already validates that the block is within the range of direct blocks. > So remove the duplicate validation. > > Signed-off-by: Salah Triki <[email protected]> > --- > fs/befs/datastream.c | 8 -------- > 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/befs/datastream.c b/fs/befs/datastream.c > index 26cc417..e224b9a 100644 > --- a/fs/befs/datastream.c > +++ b/fs/befs/datastream.c > @@ -249,17 +249,9 @@ befs_find_brun_direct(struct super_block *sb, const > befs_data_stream *data, > int i; > const befs_block_run *array = data->direct; > befs_blocknr_t sum; > - befs_blocknr_t max_block = > - data->max_direct_range >> BEFS_SB(sb)->block_shift; > > befs_debug(sb, "---> %s, find %lu", __func__, (unsigned long)blockno); > > - if (blockno > max_block) { > - befs_error(sb, "%s passed block outside of direct region", > - __func__); > - return BEFS_ERR; > - } > - > for (i = 0, sum = 0; i < BEFS_NUM_DIRECT_BLOCKS; > sum += array[i].len, i++) { > if (blockno >= sum && blockno < sum + (array[i].len)) { >
Hi Salah, These aren't the same check though. If we ignore the BEFS_SB(sb)->block_shift just to comparing them, we can consider the checks to be the following. In befs_fblock2brun(): if (fblock < data->max_direct_range) In befs_find_brun_direct(): if (fblock > data->max_direct_range) Notice how one checks if the block is past the range, and the other checks if it isn't before it. They also looked similar to me the first time I saw them and I had to double-check :) Thanks, Luis
