On Wed, 2 May 2018 11:39:36 +0300
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> We're mainly discussing readability, right?
>
> To me when people use "int" that tells me as a reader that we don't
> need to think about the type. It's going to be a small number.
>
> Say you have data which the user can control, then it's super
> important to focus on the data types. We don't focus on it
> enough. There is some kind of idea that good developers should
> just be super focused on everything all the time, but I don't think
> humans can do it. So to me it's useful when the author tells me,
> "This an int type. It's fine. This is not critical."
>
> If you make request->n_ssids a u8 or u16, that isn't going to save
> any memory because the struct is padded. You'd also need to audit
> a bunch of code to make sure that we don't overflow the u16. If
> you wanted to overflow the int, you'd need to allocate several gigs
> of memory but kmalloc() is capped at KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE (4MB) so
> that's not possible. How many of these structs do we allocate? Is
> it really worth optimizing the heck out of it?
>
> There are times where want to be very deliberate with our types
> because we're dealing the large numbers, or user data or fast
> paths. But there are other times where int is fine...
>
As in this case, its fine to be of 'int' type.
So we can retain the current data type('int') for 'i' and 'slot_id'.
Thank you for sharing your insights,it was very helpful.
Regards,
Ajay
