Re: [PATCH 00/10] Fix confusion around MAX_ORDER

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 9/28/23 09:50, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
Fix the bugs and then change the definition of MAX_ORDER to be
inclusive: the range of orders user can ask from buddy allocator is
0..MAX_ORDER now.
I think that exclusive MAX_ORDER is more intuitive in the C language -
i.e. if you write "for (i = 0; i < MAX_ORDER; i++)", you are supposed to
loop over all allowed values. If you declare an array "void
*array[MAX_ORDER];" you are supposed to hold a value for each allowed
order.

Pascal has for loops and array dimensions with inclusive ranges - and it
is more prone to off-by-one errors.

I agree it's somewhat confusing either way but the ship has sailed, the patch has been included in Linux for several months.

Paolo





[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux