On Thu 2023-09-28 18:57:18, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > 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. Just make sure people don't backport it to stable. Fixes: (the commit that causes the semantic change) should do the trick. BR, Pavel -- People of Russia, stop Putin before his war on Ukraine escalates.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
