02.11.2017 21:06, Eric Blake wrote:
On 11/01/2017 10:42 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Add an assert here to make last length assignment meaningful and
following return without tail dropping obvious.
Not quite sure I followed your explanation, which means it's difficult
for me to propose an alternative wording. Maybe:
Add an assert here to make it obvious that the prior loop consumed the
rest of the input, and that all further code in the function is focused
on output.
On the other hand, if you are okay with it, I wouldn't mind squashing
the first and second patches into one (as the first patch is then easier
to read when it is obvious that we used the wrong length variable). But
until I get your feedback (on either squashing the two patches or
tweaking the wording), I'm just placing your patches as-is on my NBD
queue for inclusion prior to rc0.
in commit message I mean two things:
1. assignment to length in the previous loop is useless without an assert
2. firstly I thought that the following return statement is a bug as it
doesn't
drop payload tail. And only then I noticed previous "if (requests !=
length / sizeof(request))".
With an assert the correctness of the code is more evident.
However you may reword or squash it as you want, all is good.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsement...@virtuozzo.com>
---
nbd/server.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com>
--
Best regards,
Vladimir
