On Mon, 2017-01-16 at 17:22 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > I was reviewing old warnings and I stumbled across this one again. > Although I wrote that &fd.key->cat and "fd.key" are equivalent, I > feel > that actually we should be doing the former. fd.key is a union but > we > want the ->cat member of the union. > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 01:54:06PM -0800, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2016-01-26 at 22:18 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > > > > Hm, I completely didn't see that it was a union instead of a > > > struct. I > > > still think my fix is actually correct though. Now that you > > > point out > > > the union, I see that my change is equivalent to just removing > > > the '&' > > > char. > > > > > > - memcpy(&rd->key, &fd.key, sizeof(struct hfs_cat_key)); > > > + memcpy(&rd->key, fd.key, sizeof(struct hfs_cat_key)); > > > > > Yeahh, it looks correct right now. The rd is the pointer that > > includes > > struct hfs_cat_key object. So, we need to use &rd->key. But on > > another > > side we have struct hfs_find_data object on the stack. And this > > object > > includes the pointer on union btree_key. We want to copy struct > > hfs_cat_key object and we should use sizeof(struct hfs_cat_key). > I've read this paragraph several times now and I think you are saying > that the patch is correct. >
Yes, I've said that patch looks good. I think it's better to resend the patch again. Thanks, Vyacheslav Dubeyko.
