On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:29:59AM +0100, Peter Seiderer wrote: > Hello Simon, > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 13:25:38 +0000, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 02:11:45PM +0100, Peter Seiderer wrote: > > > Align some variable declarations (in get_imix_entries and get_labels) to > > > the most common pattern (int instead of ssize_t/long) and adjust function > > > return value accordingly. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Seiderer <ps.report@xxxxxxx> > > > > Hi Peter, > > > > These comments are is true in general of this patchset, but particularly so > > in the case of this patch: > > > > * I think a more succinct subject would be nice. > > * I think the patch description should provide some reason > > _why_ the change is being made. > > Yep, will improve... > > > > > Also, specifically relating to this patch, I wonder if it's scope ought to > > be extended. For example, the two callers of num_arg(), get_imix_entries() and > > pktgen_if_write() assign the return value of num_arg() to len, which is now > > an int in both functions. But num_args() returns a long. > > Aim was to get rid of the int/long mixture in the code (which works flawless > because no one writes to proc with more than a few bytes AND count is limited > to INT_MAX - PAGE_SIZE in vfs_write (see [1], [2])... > > I believe the clean way is to use > > size_t i, max; > ssize_t len; > > consequently through out the code and adjust the function signatures > accordingly...., will re-spin... Thanks Peter, I for one am all for things being consistent. ...
