On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:19:26PM +0200, walter harms wrote: > > > Am 27.06.2012 11:01, schrieb Dan Carpenter: > > I don't think we're actually likely to hit this limit but if we do > > then the comparison should be done as size_t. The original code > > is equivalent to: > > len = strlen(sptr) % USHRT_MAX; > > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > I was told this patch "has already made it upstream via the v9fs pull." > > but it must have been dropped accidentally. Originally sent on Sat, > > Jan 15, 2011. > > > > diff --git a/net/9p/protocol.c b/net/9p/protocol.c > > index 9ee48cb..3d33ecf 100644 > > --- a/net/9p/protocol.c > > +++ b/net/9p/protocol.c > > @@ -368,7 +368,7 @@ p9pdu_vwritef(struct p9_fcall *pdu, int proto_version, const char *fmt, > > const char *sptr = va_arg(ap, const char *); > > uint16_t len = 0; > > if (sptr) > > - len = min_t(uint16_t, strlen(sptr), > > + len = min_t(size_t, strlen(sptr), > > USHRT_MAX); > > > > errcode = p9pdu_writef(pdu, proto_version, > > this will result in > uint16_t = size_t > i would expect compilers to complains since uint16 < size_t > (most times). In this special case it seems more easy write it. > also ushort seems ambitious since uint16_t need not to be > ushort. so my idea would look like this: > > len=strlen > if (len>65535) len=65535; > p9pdu_writef(...,(unint16_t)len); > No. I'm sorry, what you're saying is complete nonsense. The whole point of min_t() is that you can cast to both sides to what you want before you do the compare. Obviously I wouldn't submit a patch that introduces a compile warning. :/ regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
