On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 08:15:49PM +0000, George Spelvin wrote: > On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 19:38:26 +0100 greh k-h wrote; > > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 07:43:53PM +0300, Andrey Abramov wrote: > >> Replace int type with size_t type of the size argument > >> in the swap function, also affect all its dependencies. > > > > This says _what_ the patch does, but it gives no clue as to _why_ you > > are doing this. Neither did your 0/5 patch :( > > > > Why make this change? Nothing afterward depends on it from what I can > > tell, so why is it needed? > > It's just a minor cleanup, making things less surprising for future > programmers. As I wrote in a comment in my patches, using a signed type > for an object size is definitely a wart; ever since C89 it's expected > you'd use size_t for the purpose. You did not say that in this commit log :) > The connection is that it's a natural consequence of doing a pass over > every call site. > > You're right it could be dropped from the series harmlessly, but it > comes from the same work. But it's all of *three* call sites in the kernel > which are affected. Surely that's not an unreasonable amount of churn > to clean up a wart? If you think it is a wart, wonderful, yes, let's fix it up. But again, a changelog comment should explain _why_ a commit is needed, not _what_ it does, as we can see from the diff itself exactly what the commit does. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
