On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
quoted text
> 
>  Personally, I think this is probably a case of LTP codifying existing
>  behavior rather than testing the for the specification. If that's the case
>  and nobody really cares about the change in behavior, I'm fine letting this
>  drop.

Hmm.. I think it's kind of stupid adding that special case early on, just 
to get one particular error case return when there are multiple possible 
ones. 

I don't care deeply, but this does smell like a test issue rather than a 
code issue.

Looking at that path, there are *other* things that might be worth 
cleaning up, but this wasn't one of them..

		Linus

---
diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
index facc1a7..fe286f7 100644
--- a/mm/mmap.c
+++ b/mm/mmap.c
@@ -893,7 +893,6 @@ unsigned long do_mmap_pgoff(struct file * file, unsigned long addr,
 			unsigned long flags, unsigned long pgoff)
 {
 	struct mm_struct * mm = current->mm;
-	struct inode *inode;
 	unsigned int vm_flags;
 	int error;
 	int accountable = 1;
@@ -959,9 +958,9 @@ unsigned long do_mmap_pgoff(struct file * file, unsigned long addr,
 			return -EAGAIN;
 	}
 
-	inode = file ? file->f_path.dentry->d_inode : NULL;
-
 	if (file) {
+		struct inode *inode = file->f_path.dentry->d_inode;
+
 		switch (flags & MAP_TYPE) {
 		case MAP_SHARED:
 			if ((prot&PROT_WRITE) && !(file->f_mode&FMODE_WRITE))
-
unsubscribe notice
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/