On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 12:40:58AM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 06:12:43PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > Hi Phil, > > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 05:16:40PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > > > There is no point in this change besides presenting its possibility > > > separate from a follow-up patch extending the size of both 'index' and > > > 'nstamps' fields. > > > > > > The value of 'nstamps' is initialized to 1 in recent_entry_init() and > > > adjusted in recent_entry_update() to match that of 'index' if it becomes > > > larger after being incremented. Since 'index' is of type u8, it will at > > > max become 255 (and wrap to 0 afterwards). Therefore, 'nstamps' will > > > also never exceed the value 255. > > > > Series LGTM. > > Thanks for your review. > > > I'd suggest you collapse these two patches while keeping the > > description above, because nstamps is shrinked here in 1/2 then it > > gets back to original u16 in 2/2. > > ACK, that was the plan right from the start. :) Thanks, I have to admit splitting the patch in two helped me understand a lot better when reviewing. > > Maybe something like: > > I composed a new note to add to the second patch. Please review and let > me know if it's unclear or misleading. LGTM, thanks
