On (09/18/18 22:43), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > First - switch to u64 size.
> > Second - check for NULL str.
> >
> I think I would switch it around. Check for NULL first, and then switch
> to u64. It was always an int, do we need to backport converting it to
> u64 to stable? The NULL check is a definite, the overflow of int
> shouldn't crash anything.
Agreed. This order makes much more sense. Do you mind, tho, to have
"unsigned int size" in the first patch along with NULL str check?
Just to silent the checkpatch.
-ss
