30.03.2019, 23:17, "George Spelvin" <lkml@xxxxxxx>: > 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. > > 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? George Spelvin is absolutely right: "It's just a minor cleanup, making things less surprising for future programmers." 31.03.2019, 00:51, "George Spelvin" <lkml@xxxxxxx>: > It was so obvious to me that I didn't question it, but you have a > good point and I'm sure Andrey can clarify. Thanks for the attention! I thought that it is obvious enough (argument called "size" should be of type size_t in the 90% of cases). Should I resend this patch with better explanation "why"? -- With Best Regards, Andrey Abramov _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
