christophe leroy writes:
> Le 01/10/2018 à 18:44, Dan Carpenter a écrit :
>> The "count < sizeof(struct os_area_db)" comparison is type promoted to
>> size_t so negative values of "count" are treated as very high values and
>> we accidentally return success instead of a negative error code.
>>
>
On 10/01/2018 09:44 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> The "count < sizeof(struct os_area_db)" comparison is type promoted to
> size_t so negative values of "count" are treated as very high values and
> we accidentally return success instead of a negative error code.
>
> This doesn't really change runtime
On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 10:02:54PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 08:22:01PM +0200, christophe leroy wrote:
> >
> >
> > Le 01/10/2018 à 18:44, Dan Carpenter a écrit :
> > > The "count < sizeof(struct os_area_db)" comparison is type promoted to
> > > size_t so negative value
On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 08:22:01PM +0200, christophe leroy wrote:
>
>
> Le 01/10/2018 à 18:44, Dan Carpenter a écrit :
> > The "count < sizeof(struct os_area_db)" comparison is type promoted to
> > size_t so negative values of "count" are treated as very high values and
> > we accidentally return
Le 01/10/2018 à 18:44, Dan Carpenter a écrit :
The "count < sizeof(struct os_area_db)" comparison is type promoted to
size_t so negative values of "count" are treated as very high values and
we accidentally return success instead of a negative error code.
This doesn't really change runtime mu
The "count < sizeof(struct os_area_db)" comparison is type promoted to
size_t so negative values of "count" are treated as very high values and
we accidentally return success instead of a negative error code.
This doesn't really change runtime much but it fixes a static checker
warning.
Signed-of
