Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 9 Nov 2023 23:42:03 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH -next V2] erofs: code clean up for function erofs_read_inode() | From | Gao Xiang <> |
| |
On 2023/11/9 21:45, Zizhi Wo wrote: > > > 在 2023/11/9 21:14, Gao Xiang 写道: >> Hi, >> >> On 2023/11/10 03:48, WoZ1zh1 wrote: >>> Because variables "die" and "copied" only appear in case >>> EROFS_INODE_LAYOUT_EXTENDED, move them from the outer space into this >>> case. Also, call "kfree(copied)" earlier to avoid double free in the >>> "error_out" branch. Some cleanups, no logic changes. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: WoZ1zh1 <wozizhi@huawei.com> >> >> Please help use your real name here... >> >>> --- >>> fs/erofs/inode.c | 6 +++--- >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/fs/erofs/inode.c b/fs/erofs/inode.c >>> index b8ad05b4509d..a388c93eec34 100644 >>> --- a/fs/erofs/inode.c >>> +++ b/fs/erofs/inode.c >>> @@ -19,7 +19,6 @@ static void *erofs_read_inode(struct erofs_buf *buf, >>> erofs_blk_t blkaddr, nblks = 0; >>> void *kaddr; >>> struct erofs_inode_compact *dic; >>> - struct erofs_inode_extended *die, *copied = NULL; >>> unsigned int ifmt; >>> int err; >>> @@ -53,6 +52,8 @@ static void *erofs_read_inode(struct erofs_buf *buf, >>> switch (erofs_inode_version(ifmt)) { >>> case EROFS_INODE_LAYOUT_EXTENDED: >>> + struct erofs_inode_extended *die, *copied = NULL; >> >> Thanks for the patch, but in my own opinion: >> >> 1) It doesn't simplify the code > OK, I'm sorry for the noise(;´༎ຶД༎ຶ`) >> >> 2) We'd like to avoid defining variables like this (in the >> switch block), and I even don't think this patch can compile. > I tested this patch with gcc-12.2.1 locally and it compiled > successfully. I'm not sure if this patch will fail in other environment > with different compiler...
For example, it fails as below on gcc 10.2.1:
fs/erofs/inode.c: In function 'erofs_read_inode': fs/erofs/inode.c:55:3: error: a label can only be part of a statement and a declaration is not a statement 55 | struct erofs_inode_extended *die, *copied = NULL; | ^~~~~~
> >> 3) The logic itself is also broken...
Maybe I was missing something, but this usage makes me uneasy...
Thanks, Gao Xiang
> > Sorry, but I just don't understand why the logic itself is broken, and > can you please explain more? > > Thanks, > Zizhi Wo > >> Thanks, >> Gao Xiang
| |