Re: [PATCH -next 2/2] bcache: Use max_t() when comparing differenttypes

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 21:45:36 +0100 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > --- a/drivers/md/bcache/btree.c~bcache-drop-l-suffix-when-comparing-ssize_t-with-0-fix
> > +++ a/drivers/md/bcache/btree.c
> > @@ -1805,7 +1805,7 @@ static bool btree_insert_key(struct btre
> >
> >  static size_t insert_u64s_remaining(struct btree *b)
> >  {
> > -       ssize_t ret = bch_btree_keys_u64s_remaining(&b->keys);
> > +       size_t ret = bch_btree_keys_u64s_remaining(&b->keys);
> >
> >         /*
> >          * Might land in the middle of an existing extent and have to split it
> > @@ -1813,7 +1813,7 @@ static size_t insert_u64s_remaining(stru
> >         if (b->keys.ops->is_extents)
> >                 ret -= KEY_MAX_U64S;
> 
> I think the reason is the line above: with size_t, ret may become a big
> positive number when the subtraction wraps below zero.

Well, I assumed that case would be a bug - otherwise the programmer
would have commented such a subtlety.  Wouldn't he?

> >
> > -       return max(ret, 0);
> > +       return max_t(size_t, ret, 0);
> 
> That part is OK, cfr. my v1 (which I had planned to send out as v3 again).

It needs to be ssize_t.
--
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/