[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200326172224.GC3629@ubuntu>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:22:25 +0100
From: Oscar Carter <oscar.carter@....com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Quentin Deslandes <quentin.deslandes@...ev.co.uk>
Cc: Oscar Carter <oscar.carter@....com>,
Forest Bond <forest@...ttletooquiet.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Malcolm Priestley <tvboxspy@...il.com>,
Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
Gabriela Bittencourt <gabrielabittencourt00@...il.com>,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: vt6656: Use ARRAY_SIZE instead of hardcoded
size
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 09:19:24AM +0000, Quentin Deslandes wrote:
> On 03/24/20 16:18:30, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > That's a bit over engineering something which is pretty trivial.
> > Normally, we would just make the size a define instead of a magic number
> > 14.
>
> My bad, I meant "define", not "macro".
>
> > If people change the size in the future (unlikely) and it causes a bug
> > then they kind of deserve it because they need to ensure all the new
> > stuff is initialized, right? If they change it and it results in a
> > buffer overflow then static checkers would complain. If they changed it
> > and it resulted in uninitialized data being used then it would be zero
> > so that's okay.
>
> I wasn't sure where I should stand on this, that's clearer now.
>
> Thanks,
> Quentin
Dan and Quentin, thanks for your time to review my work, and make comments.
oscar carter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists