On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Rob Jones <rob.jo...@codethink.co.uk> 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. -- Thanks, //richard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
