On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 10:00:18AM +0300, Andrey Abramov wrote: > 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." Then document it. > 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"? Yes, "int" is a very nice variable for "size", you need to explain why it is better to use size_t here please. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
