Re: [PATCH] fs: replace int param with size_t for seq_open_private()

[Rob Jones]

On 12/09/14 15:16, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Rob Jones <rob.jones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 01/09/14 16:36, Al Viro wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 02:17:08PM +0100, Rob Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > >    void *__seq_open_private(struct file *f, const struct seq_operations
> > > > *ops,
> > > > -               int psize)
> > > > +               size_t psize)
> > >
> > >
> > > <sarcasm>
> > > It is a horrible limitation to impose, indeed.  Why, a lousy
> > > 2 gigabytes per line in procfs file - that's intolerable...
> > > </sarcasm>
> >
> > OK, I know this is a trivial patch but I've gone away and thought about
> > it and done some reading to see what the rest of the world thinks about
> > using size_t vs unsigned int (signed int is an abomination in this
> > context regardless).
> >
> > I think Al's sarcasm is misplaced.
> >
> > The correct type to use here *is* size_t. It's about consistency and,
> > more importantly, it's about not making assumptions about the hardware
> > architecture. It's included in the language for very good reasons and
> > it seems to me to be risky to ignore those reasons.
>
> Please don't forget to patch all for loops to use size_t instead of int too.

Yes, I'm sure we've all read that argument too. Now try behaving like a 
grown up.

--
Rob Jones
Codethink Ltd
mailto:rob.jones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
tel:+44 161 236 5575
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/