On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 12:32:02PM +, YueHaibing wrote:
> There is a messy cast here:
> min_t(int, len, (int)sizeof(*item)));
>
> min_t() should normally cast to unsigned. It's not possible for
> "len" to be negative, but if it were then we definitely
> wouldn't want to pass negatives
On 2019/2/20 下午8:32, YueHaibing wrote:
> There is a messy cast here:
> min_t(int, len, (int)sizeof(*item)));
>
> min_t() should normally cast to unsigned. It's not possible for
> "len" to be negative, but if it were then we definitely
> wouldn't want to pass negatives to
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 12:32:02PM +, YueHaibing wrote:
> There is a messy cast here:
> min_t(int, len, (int)sizeof(*item)));
>
> min_t() should normally cast to unsigned. It's not possible for
> "len" to be negative, but if it were then we definitely
> wouldn't want to pass negatives
There is a messy cast here:
min_t(int, len, (int)sizeof(*item)));
min_t() should normally cast to unsigned. It's not possible for
"len" to be negative, but if it were then we definitely
wouldn't want to pass negatives to read_extent_buffer(). Also there
is an extra cast.
This patch
4 matches
Mail list logo