Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:43:33 +0100 | From | Rob Jones <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] fs: replace int param with size_t for seq_open_private() |
| |
On 12/09/14 15:16, Richard Weinberger wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Rob Jones <rob.jones@codethink.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >> On 01/09/14 16:36, Al Viro wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 02:17:08PM +0100, Rob Jones wrote: >>> >>>> void *__seq_open_private(struct file *f, const struct seq_operations >>>> *ops, >>>> - int psize) >>>> + size_t psize) >>> >>> >>> <sarcasm> >>> It is a horrible limitation to impose, indeed. Why, a lousy >>> 2 gigabytes per line in procfs file - that's intolerable... >>> </sarcasm> >>> >>> >> >> OK, I know this is a trivial patch but I've gone away and thought about >> it and done some reading to see what the rest of the world thinks about >> using size_t vs unsigned int (signed int is an abomination in this >> context regardless). >> >> I think Al's sarcasm is misplaced. >> >> The correct type to use here *is* size_t. It's about consistency and, >> more importantly, it's about not making assumptions about the hardware >> architecture. It's included in the language for very good reasons and >> it seems to me to be risky to ignore those reasons. > > Please don't forget to patch all for loops to use size_t instead of int too. >
Yes, I'm sure we've all read that argument too. Now try behaving like a grown up.
-- Rob Jones Codethink Ltd mailto:rob.jones@codethink.co.uk tel:+44 161 236 5575
| |