On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 10:34 AM Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 09:15:34AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 1:58 AM Andy Shevchenko > > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 8:28 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 6:59 AM Andy Shevchenko > > > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Strictly speaking the comparison between guid_t and raw buffer > > > > > is not correct. Import GUID to variable of guid_t type and then > > > > > compare. > > > > > > > > Hmm, what about something like the following instead, because it adds > > > > safety. Any concerns about evaluating x twice in a macro should be > > > > alleviated by the fact that ARRAY_SIZE() will fail the build if (x) is > > > > not an array. > > > > > > ARRAY_SIZE doesn't check type. > > > > See __must_be_array. > > > > > I don't like hiding ugly casts like this. > > > > See PTR_ERR, ERR_PTR, ERR_CAST. > > It's special, i.e. error pointer case. We don't handle such here. > > > There's nothing broken about the way the code currently stands, so I'd > > rather try to find something to move the implementation forward than > > sideways. > > Submit a patch then. I rest my case b/c I consider that ugly castings worse > than additional API call, although it's not ideal. It sounds like you'll NAK that patch, and I'm not too enthusiastic about these proposed changes either because I disagree that the code is incorrect. Is there another compromise?
