On 12/09/14 15:16, Richard Weinberger wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Rob Jones <rob.jones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
tel:+44 161 236 5575
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
