Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next] libbpf: Fix signed overflow in ringbuf_process_ring

[Brendan Jackman]

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 at 18:31, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 6:05 AM Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > Note: I feel a bit guilty about the fact that this makes the reader
> > think about implicit conversions. Nobody likes thinking about that.
> >
> > But explicit casts don't really help with clarity:
> >
> >   return (int)min(cnt, (int64_t)INT_MAX); // ugh
> >
>
> I'd go with
>
> if (cnt > INT_MAX)
>     return INT_MAX;
>
> return cnt;

Sure, it has all the same implicit casts/promotions but I guess it's
clearer anyway.

> If you don't mind, I can patch it up while applying?

Yes please do, thanks!