Re: [PATCH] Suppress deprecated f_maxcount in 'struct file'

[Jesper Juhl]

On 8/22/05, Peter Staubach <staubach@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
> > Andrew Morton a écrit :
> >
> >> Eric Dumazet <dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Considering :
> >>>
> >>> [root@dada1 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 <dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >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))
> >
> 
> And depending upon how you feel about read(2) and write(2) returning larger
> than can be represented by a ssize_t, you can get rid of this test too and
> apply the attached patch to prevent failures occuring in the direct-io
> subsystem.
> 
> Limiting i/o requests to INT_MAX is starting to seem a little small.
> 
>     Thanx...
> 
>        ps
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Staubach <staubach@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
[snip]
> +       if (niov)
> +               kfree(niov);

Just make this simply
     kfree(niov);
kfree() makes the check for NULL itself internally, no need to do it twice.

-- 
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@xxxxxxxxx>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/