[PATCH] xfs_fsr: fix test for short write

[PATCH] xfs_fsr: fix test for short write

[Eric Sandeen]

Clang found this one too, as a dead nested assignment.

The point is to see if we write all the bytes; but the initial
assignment is backwards.  It's safe in the end, because if they
weren't already equal anyway, we'd have exited prior to this, but
it's worth fixing up for clarity.

Signed-of-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
---

clang record:
http://sandeen.net/clang/xfsprogs/2009-09-09-1/report-xOZEHP.html#EndPath

diff --git a/fsr/xfs_fsr.c b/fsr/xfs_fsr.c
index 9f2bf24..253a55d 100644
--- a/fsr/xfs_fsr.c
+++ b/fsr/xfs_fsr.c
@@ -1190,7 +1190,7 @@ packfile(char *fname, char *tname, int fd,
 			}
 			if (nfrags) {
 				/* Do a matching write to the tmp file */
-				wc = wc_b4;
+				wc_b4 = wc;
 				if (((wc = write(ffd, fbuf, wc)) != wc_b4)) {
 					fsrprintf(_("bad write of %d bytes "	
 						"to %s: %s\n"),

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: [PATCH] xfs_fsr: fix test for short write

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:08:13PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Clang found this one too, as a dead nested assignment.
>
> The point is to see if we write all the bytes; but the initial
> assignment is backwards.  It's safe in the end, because if they
> weren't already equal anyway, we'd have exited prior to this, but
> it's worth fixing up for clarity.
>
> Signed-of-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>

Looks good to me, 


Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs