ffs_fhtovp: inode overflow?

From: Eric van Gyzen <eric_at_vangyzen.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:26:41 -0600

Since ino64 went in, Coverity complains that the two "ino >= foo" 
comparisons in ffs_fhtovp() compare a 64-bit value to a 32-bit.  Is this 
a problem in practice?

Eric

Received on Wed Dec 11 2019 - 15:26:55 UTC

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Hartmann, O.: "Re: Supermicro X9SCV-Q: no boot options to define"
Previous message: Hans Petter Selasky: "Re: any scheduler/ipi/wakeup bug fixed in the last year?"
Next in thread: Konstantin Belousov: "Re: ffs_fhtovp: inode overflow?"
Reply: Konstantin Belousov: "Re: ffs_fhtovp: inode overflow?"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:22 UTC