| Message ID | 20140321195403.GA32529@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
Am 21.03.2014 20:54, schrieb Mike Snitzer: > The comparisons used in add_vol() shouldn't be identical. Pretty sure > the following is correct but it is completely untested. > > Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com> > --- > drivers/mtd/ubi/fastmap.c | 4 ++-- > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > NOTE: I stumbled upon this code while implementing some rb_tree code > (and looking for some existing rb_tree code as a reference). Thanks a lot for pointing this out! Acked-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> Thanks, //richard
Hi Artem, On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:56:59AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Am 21.03.2014 20:54, schrieb Mike Snitzer: > > The comparisons used in add_vol() shouldn't be identical. Pretty sure > > the following is correct but it is completely untested. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com> > > --- > > drivers/mtd/ubi/fastmap.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > NOTE: I stumbled upon this code while implementing some rb_tree code > > (and looking for some existing rb_tree code as a reference). > > Thanks a lot for pointing this out! > > Acked-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> Bump? I'm passing through my queue, and I occasionally see some obvious, reviewed fixes like this one. Typically, you get around to them eventually, but you never know. Do you prefer the "bump"? Brian
On Fri, 2014-05-09 at 18:19 -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > Hi Artem, > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:56:59AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > Am 21.03.2014 20:54, schrieb Mike Snitzer: > > > The comparisons used in add_vol() shouldn't be identical. Pretty sure > > > the following is correct but it is completely untested. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/mtd/ubi/fastmap.c | 4 ++-- > > > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > NOTE: I stumbled upon this code while implementing some rb_tree code > > > (and looking for some existing rb_tree code as a reference). > > > > Thanks a lot for pointing this out! > > > > Acked-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> > > Bump? > > I'm passing through my queue, and I occasionally see some obvious, > reviewed fixes like this one. Typically, you get around to them > eventually, but you never know. Do you prefer the "bump"? I'll pick this now, thanks for pointing. And yes, a "bump" is helpful. E.g., I missed this ones.
On Fri, 2014-03-21 at 15:54 -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote: > The comparisons used in add_vol() shouldn't be identical. Pretty sure > the following is correct but it is completely untested. > > Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com> Pushed to linux-ubifs.git, thanks!
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/fastmap.c b/drivers/mtd/ubi/fastmap.c index ead8613..60c7a20 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/ubi/fastmap.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/ubi/fastmap.c @@ -125,9 +125,9 @@ static struct ubi_ainf_volume *add_vol(struct ubi_attach_info *ai, int vol_id, parent = *p; av = rb_entry(parent, struct ubi_ainf_volume, rb); - if (vol_id > av->vol_id) + if (vol_id < av->vol_id) p = &(*p)->rb_left; - else if (vol_id > av->vol_id) + else p = &(*p)->rb_right; }
The comparisons used in add_vol() shouldn't be identical. Pretty sure the following is correct but it is completely untested. Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com> --- drivers/mtd/ubi/fastmap.c | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) NOTE: I stumbled upon this code while implementing some rb_tree code (and looking for some existing rb_tree code as a reference).