On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 06:44:46PM +0100, Krzysztof Smiechowicz wrote:
> Robert Millan pisze:
>
> >>Index: fs/sfs.c
> >>===================================================================
> >>--- fs/sfs.c (revision 1919)
> >>+++ fs/sfs.c (working copy)
> >>@@ -172,7 +172,8 @@
> >> return grub_errno;
> >> }
> >>
> >>- for (i = 0; i < grub_be_to_cpu16 (tree->nodes); i++)
> >>+ grub_uint16_t nodescount = grub_be_to_cpu16(tree->nodes);
> >>+ for (i = nodescount - 1; i >= 0; i--)
> >
> >nodescount is only used once; why adding a variable?
> >
> >> /* Follow the tree down to the leaf level. */
> >>- if ((grub_be_to_cpu32 (EXTNODE(tree, i)->key) >= block)
> >>+ if ((grub_be_to_cpu32 (EXTNODE(tree, i)->key) <= block)
> >> && !tree->leaf)
> >> {
> >>- next = grub_be_to_cpu32 (EXTNODE (tree, i - 1)->data);
> >>- break;
> >>- }
> >>-
> >>- /* In case the last node is reached just use that one, it is
> >>- the right match. */
> >>- if (i + 1 == grub_be_to_cpu16 (tree->nodes) && !tree->leaf)
> >>- {
> >> next = grub_be_to_cpu32 (EXTNODE (tree, i)->data);
> >> break;
> >> }
> >
> >I'm not familiar with our SFS code. Marco, if you have a minute could you
> >review this part?
> >
>
> Hello,
>
> Any news about applying this patch? :)
Since Marco (who wrote that file) is not currently active, and nobody else
seems to be able to test and/or proofread it, we could just trust that you
know what you're doing.
Please, could you resend the patch without the unneeded 'nodescount' and
a ChangeLog entry?
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."
_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
