[13/14] HPFS: Move declaration up, so that there are no out-of-scope pointers
diff mbox series

Message ID alpine.DEB.2.00.1105082031050.7013@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz
State New, archived
Headers show
Series
  • Fix HPFS
Related show

Commit Message

Mikulas Patocka May 8, 2011, 6:44 p.m. UTC
Move declaration up, so that there are no out-of-scope pointers

Reported-by: Jesper Juhl <jj@chaosbits.net>
Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>

---
 fs/hpfs/ea.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Comments

Jesper Juhl May 9, 2011, 8:21 p.m. UTC | #1
On Sun, 8 May 2011, Mikulas Patocka wrote:

> Move declaration up, so that there are no out-of-scope pointers
> 
> Reported-by: Jesper Juhl <jj@chaosbits.net>
> Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
> 

Hmm. I'm a little currious how my original Signed-off-by got turned into a 
Reported-by for this patch?

This patch is *exactely* the one I submitted on Dec 24 in a message with 
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1012242020090.28973@swampdragon.chaosbits.net>

Ok, it's a trivial little thing, but still. When the patch is completely 
unchanged I think it's a little steep to change the original authors 
Signed-off-by and essentially claim authorship of the patch for one self.


> ---
>  fs/hpfs/ea.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> Index: linux-2.6.39-rc5-fast/fs/hpfs/ea.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.39-rc5-fast.orig/fs/hpfs/ea.c	2011-05-05 01:03:00.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.39-rc5-fast/fs/hpfs/ea.c	2011-05-05 01:03:01.000000000 +0200
> @@ -76,6 +76,7 @@ int hpfs_read_ea(struct super_block *s, 
>  	unsigned pos;
>  	int ano, len;
>  	secno a;
> +	char ex[4 + 255 + 1 + 8];
>  	struct extended_attribute *ea;
>  	struct extended_attribute *ea_end = fnode_end_ea(fnode);
>  	for (ea = fnode_ea(fnode); ea < ea_end; ea = next_ea(ea))
> @@ -93,7 +94,6 @@ int hpfs_read_ea(struct super_block *s, 
>  	ano = fnode->ea_anode;
>  	pos = 0;
>  	while (pos < len) {
> -		char ex[4 + 255 + 1 + 8];
>  		ea = (struct extended_attribute *)ex;
>  		if (pos + 4 > len) {
>  			hpfs_error(s, "EAs don't end correctly, %s %08x, len %08x",
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
Mikulas Patocka May 9, 2011, 10:25 p.m. UTC | #2
On Mon, 9 May 2011, Jesper Juhl wrote:

> On Sun, 8 May 2011, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> 
> > Move declaration up, so that there are no out-of-scope pointers
> > 
> > Reported-by: Jesper Juhl <jj@chaosbits.net>
> > Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
> > 

So change it to:

Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <jj@chaosbits.net>

> Hmm. I'm a little currious how my original Signed-off-by got turned into a 
> Reported-by for this patch?

I don't know. I probably checked the code independently after your report 
and ended up fixing exactly the same thing that you fixed.

Mikulas

> This patch is *exactely* the one I submitted on Dec 24 in a message with 
> Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1012242020090.28973@swampdragon.chaosbits.net>
> 
> Ok, it's a trivial little thing, but still. When the patch is completely 
> unchanged I think it's a little steep to change the original authors 
> Signed-off-by and essentially claim authorship of the patch for one self.
> 
> 
> > ---
> >  fs/hpfs/ea.c |    2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > Index: linux-2.6.39-rc5-fast/fs/hpfs/ea.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.39-rc5-fast.orig/fs/hpfs/ea.c	2011-05-05 01:03:00.000000000 +0200
> > +++ linux-2.6.39-rc5-fast/fs/hpfs/ea.c	2011-05-05 01:03:01.000000000 +0200
> > @@ -76,6 +76,7 @@ int hpfs_read_ea(struct super_block *s, 
> >  	unsigned pos;
> >  	int ano, len;
> >  	secno a;
> > +	char ex[4 + 255 + 1 + 8];
> >  	struct extended_attribute *ea;
> >  	struct extended_attribute *ea_end = fnode_end_ea(fnode);
> >  	for (ea = fnode_ea(fnode); ea < ea_end; ea = next_ea(ea))
> > @@ -93,7 +94,6 @@ int hpfs_read_ea(struct super_block *s, 
> >  	ano = fnode->ea_anode;
> >  	pos = 0;
> >  	while (pos < len) {
> > -		char ex[4 + 255 + 1 + 8];
> >  		ea = (struct extended_attribute *)ex;
> >  		if (pos + 4 > len) {
> >  			hpfs_error(s, "EAs don't end correctly, %s %08x, len %08x",
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Jesper Juhl <jj@chaosbits.net>       http://www.chaosbits.net/
> Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
> Plain text mails only, please.
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Jesper Juhl May 9, 2011, 10:29 p.m. UTC | #3
On Tue, 10 May 2011, Mikulas Patocka wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, 9 May 2011, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 8 May 2011, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > 
> > > Move declaration up, so that there are no out-of-scope pointers
> > > 
> > > Reported-by: Jesper Juhl <jj@chaosbits.net>
> > > Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
> > > 
> 
> So change it to:
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <jj@chaosbits.net>
> 
Kinda hard when it's already merged in mainline ;-)


> > Hmm. I'm a little currious how my original Signed-off-by got turned into a 
> > Reported-by for this patch?
> 
> I don't know. I probably checked the code independently after your report 
> and ended up fixing exactly the same thing that you fixed.
> 
Just seems a little odd that you would check the code based on my report 
(you must have been aware of it given the reported-by) and then ending up 
with the exact same fix would chose to submit a completely new patch with 
the exact same contents but with you as author...

Ohh well, never mind - it's a trivial patch and the important thing is 
that it got merged. I just got a little annoyed at seeing a patch that I 
had submitted and even ping'ed people about later, getting merged with a 
different author and me just listed as 'reported-by'... I just care about 
these things, even for trivial stuff - it's a matter of "credit where 
credit is due" even when the change is minor...

but let's just leave it where it is - the fix got merged, that's the 
really important bit :-)

Patch
diff mbox series

Index: linux-2.6.39-rc5-fast/fs/hpfs/ea.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.39-rc5-fast.orig/fs/hpfs/ea.c	2011-05-05 01:03:00.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.39-rc5-fast/fs/hpfs/ea.c	2011-05-05 01:03:01.000000000 +0200
@@ -76,6 +76,7 @@  int hpfs_read_ea(struct super_block *s, 
 	unsigned pos;
 	int ano, len;
 	secno a;
+	char ex[4 + 255 + 1 + 8];
 	struct extended_attribute *ea;
 	struct extended_attribute *ea_end = fnode_end_ea(fnode);
 	for (ea = fnode_ea(fnode); ea < ea_end; ea = next_ea(ea))
@@ -93,7 +94,6 @@  int hpfs_read_ea(struct super_block *s, 
 	ano = fnode->ea_anode;
 	pos = 0;
 	while (pos < len) {
-		char ex[4 + 255 + 1 + 8];
 		ea = (struct extended_attribute *)ex;
 		if (pos + 4 > len) {
 			hpfs_error(s, "EAs don't end correctly, %s %08x, len %08x",