On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:08:50AM -0700, Boris Burkov wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 09:05:49PM +0800, Su Yue wrote:
> > @@ -1158,6 +1158,16 @@ static int check_resize_args(const char *amount,
> > const char *path) {
> > }
> > old_size = di_args[dev_idx].total_bytes;
> >
> > + /* For target sizes without '+'/'-' sign prefix(e.g. 1:150g) */
> > + if (mod == 0) {
> > + new_size = diff;
> > + diff = max(old_size, new_size) - min(old_size,
> > new_size);
> > + if (new_size > old_size)
> > + mod = 1;
> > + else if (new_size < old_size)
> > + mod = -1;
> > + }
> > +
> > if (mod < 0) {
> > if (diff > old_size) {
> > error("current size is %s which is smaller than
> > %s",
>
> This fix seems correct to me, but it feels a tiny bit over-complicated.
> Personally, I think it would be cleaner to do something like:
>
> if (mod == 0) {
> new_size = diff;
> } else if (mod < 0) {
> // >0 check
> new_size = old_size - diff
> } else {
> // overflow check
> new_size = old_size + diff
> }
Right, this looks much better and shares a lot of with the code that
follows the original fix.
