Andrew Morton a écrit :
Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Considering :

[EMAIL PROTECTED] linux-2.6.13-rc6]# find .|xargs grep f_maxcount
./fs/file_table.c:      f->f_maxcount = INT_MAX;
./fs/read_write.c:      if (unlikely(count > file->f_maxcount))
./include/linux/fs.h:   size_t                  f_maxcount;


I was wondering if f_maxcount has a real use these days...


No, I guess we can just stick a hard-wired INT_MAX in there.



OK here is a patch doing the hard wiring then :)

* struct file cleanup : f_maxcount has an unique value (INT_MAX). Just use the 
hard-wired value.

Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

diff -Nru linux-2.6.13-rc6/fs/file_table.c linux-2.6.13-rc6-ed/fs/file_table.c
--- linux-2.6.13-rc6/fs/file_table.c    2005-08-07 20:18:56.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.13-rc6-ed/fs/file_table.c 2005-08-19 23:51:20.000000000 +0200
@@ -89,7 +89,6 @@
        rwlock_init(&f->f_owner.lock);
        /* f->f_version: 0 */
        INIT_LIST_HEAD(&f->f_list);
-       f->f_maxcount = INT_MAX;
        return f;
 
 over:
diff -Nru linux-2.6.13-rc6/fs/read_write.c linux-2.6.13-rc6-ed/fs/read_write.c
--- linux-2.6.13-rc6/fs/read_write.c    2005-08-07 20:18:56.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.13-rc6-ed/fs/read_write.c 2005-08-19 23:51:20.000000000 +0200
@@ -188,7 +188,7 @@
        struct inode *inode;
        loff_t pos;
 
-       if (unlikely(count > file->f_maxcount))
+       if (unlikely(count > INT_MAX))
                goto Einval;
        pos = *ppos;
        if (unlikely((pos < 0) || (loff_t) (pos + count) < 0))
diff -Nru linux-2.6.13-rc6/include/linux/fs.h 
linux-2.6.13-rc6-ed/include/linux/fs.h
--- linux-2.6.13-rc6/include/linux/fs.h 2005-08-07 20:18:56.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.13-rc6-ed/include/linux/fs.h      2005-08-19 23:51:20.000000000 
+0200
@@ -594,7 +594,6 @@
        unsigned int            f_uid, f_gid;
        struct file_ra_state    f_ra;
 
-       size_t                  f_maxcount;
        unsigned long           f_version;
        void                    *f_security;
 

Reply via email to