On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 11:14:57AM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > So the only reason to add a line explicitly setting es_pblk to zero
> > would be to suppress a warning from some insufficiently smart static
> > code analysis tool. I didn't see a warning from gcc, but it's
> > possible that this is something which is causing Coverity or some
> > other code scanner heartburn.
>
> Yep, that's what picked it up. I'll add a 'not a bug' annotation to stop
> it getting flagged again. This was the only ext* issue that Coverity
> picked up from yesterdays merge btw, which I guess is good news ;)
Indeed.
Hmm... I could add a new inline function
"ext4_es_store_pblock_status()" which sets both parts of the es_pblk
word at once, and which doesn't depend looking at its original value
at all. I doubt we would never measure a difference in performance,
but in theory it would be more efficient. And if it eliminates a
potential static code analysis complaint, maybe the two justifications
is good enough to add the new function.
Thanks for checking the coverity results!!
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
