On 02/06/2018 12:33 PM, devesh.pradh...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: devesh pradhan <devesh.pradh...@gmail.com>
>
> fixed coding style issue.
I think there is more here than coding style fixes.
Also, did you do any testing after making these changes?
> Signed-off-by: devesh pradhan <devesh.pradh...@gmail.com>
> ---
> fs/ext2/super.c | 59
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------------
> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext2/super.c b/fs/ext2/super.c
> index 554c98b8a93a..cb80bcb693a9 100644
> --- a/fs/ext2/super.c
> +++ b/fs/ext2/super.c
> @@ -864,7 +860,7 @@ static int ext2_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void
> *data, int silent)
> }
>
> /*
> - * If the superblock doesn't start on a hardware sector boundary,
Why is this change being made?
> + * If the superblock doesn't start on a hardware sector boundary
> * calculate the offset.
> */
> if (blocksize != BLOCK_SIZE) {
> @@ -874,7 +870,7 @@ static int ext2_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void
> *data, int silent)
> logic_sb_block = sb_block;
> }
>
> - if (!(bh = sb_bread(sb, logic_sb_block))) {
> + if (!(bh == sb_bread(sb, logic_sb_block))) {
I'm pretty sure this one was meant to be '=', as in "assignment."
It could be split into 2 lines of code to clarify what it is doing.
> ext2_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, "error: unable to read superblock");
> goto failed_sbi;
> }
> @@ -904,8 +900,8 @@ static int ext2_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void
> *data, int silent)
> #ifdef CONFIG_EXT2_FS_POSIX_ACL
> if (def_mount_opts & EXT2_DEFM_ACL)
> set_opt(opts.s_mount_opt, POSIX_ACL);
> -#endif
> -
> +#endif
above line adds trailing whitespace. :(
> +
> if (le16_to_cpu(sbi->s_es->s_errors) == EXT2_ERRORS_PANIC)
> set_opt(opts.s_mount_opt, ERRORS_PANIC);
> else if (le16_to_cpu(sbi->s_es->s_errors) == EXT2_ERRORS_CONTINUE)
> @@ -949,7 +944,7 @@ static int ext2_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void
> *data, int silent)
> le32_to_cpu(features));
> goto failed_mount;
> }
> - if (!sb_rdonly(sb) && (features = EXT2_HAS_RO_COMPAT_FEATURE(sb,
> ~EXT2_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_SUPP))){
> + if (!sb_rdonly(sb) && (features == EXT2_HAS_RO_COMPAT_FEATURE(sb,
> ~EXT2_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_SUPP))) {
That one is most likely correct before the patch.
> ext2_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, "error: couldn't mount RDWR because of "
> "unsupported optional features (%x)",
> le32_to_cpu(features));
thanks,
--
~Randy
