Hello, On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 06:26:16PM +0000, David Laight wrote: > > This is a good catch. It's impressive that this can be caught at compile > > time. The upper limit can become zero but the lower limit should win as > > that's there to protect against divide by zero, so I think the right thinig > > to do is replacing clamp() with max(min()). Is someone interested in writing > > up the patch and sending it Jens' way? > > Perhaps if written as: > inuse = min(inuse, active) ?: 1; > it might stop someone changing it back. And maybe some comments too. When I was writing that clamp(), the case of min and max crossing each other didn't even cross my mind and I was dumbly thinking just "oh, this protects the value on both fronts", so yeah, there's some chance of someone (including myself) converting it back to clamp(). Thanks. -- tejun
