Am 27.06.2012 12:36, schrieb Dan Carpenter: > 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. :/ > i figured it out (i hope) uint16_t is internally long unsigned int not short as i expected. sorry for the noise. re, wh -- 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
