Hello *, On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:29:05 +0000, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 09:47:40AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 09:17:39 +0000 Simon Horman wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 08:11:45PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > > On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 12:00:25 +0100 Peter Seiderer wrote: > > > > > Use defines for the various dec/hex number parsing digits lengths > > > > > (hex32_arg/num_arg calls). > > > > > > > > I don't understand the value of this patch, TBH. > > > > > > > > Example: > > > > > > > > +#define HEX_2_DIGITS 2 > > > > > > > > - len = hex32_arg(&user_buffer[i], 2, &tmp_value); > > > > + len = hex32_arg(&user_buffer[i], HEX_2_DIGITS, &tmp_value); > > > > > > > > The word hex is already there. > > > > There is still a two. > > > > I don't think the new define has any explanatory power? > > > > > > > > Previous 7 patches look ready indeed. > > > > > > This one is on me. I felt the magic number 2 and so on > > > was unclear. But if you prefer the code as-is that is fine by me too. > > > > I agree that it's a bit hard to guess what the call does and what > > the arguments are. To me at least, the constants as named don't help. > > We can get a third opinion, or if none is provided skip the patch for > > now? > > Yes, I see your point. > No objections from me to skipping this patch. O.k., will re-send the patch set without this one and the rev-by for patch 2 added... Regards, Peter
