Re: [PATCH 06/23] refs: use `size_t` indexes when iterating over ref transaction updates

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:05 AM, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Now this would want to have some selling words for it?
I do not see an advantage of this patch as-is.

I mean technically we don't need a sign, so we use that extra bit
to be able to process transactions up to twice the size. But I doubt
that is the real reason. I'll read on, maybe a later patch will explain
why we do this here.

Stefan



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]