On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 15:46 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 08:21:59AM -0400, Ayman Bagabas wrote: > > Hi Dan > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019, 4:39 AM Dan Carpenter < > > dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > > > I don't think it makes sense for "end" to be negative or for even > > > for it > > > to be less than "start". That also means that "start" can't be > > > more > > > than 100 which is good. > > > > > > > While this makes sense, you run into issues where you cannot set > > "start" > > before "end" and vice versa. > > > > Take this scenario, you have start=70 and end=90, now you want to > > set these > > to start=40 and end=60, you would have to set "start" first before > > you can > > change the value of "end" otherwise you will run into EINVAL. Now > > imagine > > you wanna go the opposite direction, you would have to set "end" > > before you > > can change "start". > > I think having a little wiggle room is fine for such scenarios. > > > > I haven't tested this code... What you're describing sounds really > very weird to me, but I will accept that you know more about your > use cases than I do. > > My other concern is that right now you can set start > 100 or end < > 0. We should check for these cases. > > regards, > dan carpenter >
