[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1760515.1733395814@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2024 10:50:14 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@...istor.com>,
Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Eric
Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 02/37] rxrpc: Use umin() and umax() rather than min_t()/max_t() where possible
David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM> wrote:
> > Use umin() and umax() rather than min_t()/max_t() where the type specified
> > is an unsigned type.
>
> You are also changing some max() to umax().
Good point. If I have to respin my patches again, I'll update that.
> Presumably they have always passed the type check so max() is fine.
> And max(foo, 1) would have required that 'foo' be 'signed int' and could
> potentially be negative when max(-1, 1) will be 1 but umax(-1, 1) is
> undefined.
There have been cases like this:
unsigned long timeout;
...
timeout = max(timeout, 1);
where the macro would complain because it thought "timeout" and "1" were
different sizes, so "1UL" had to be used. Using umax() deals with that issue.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists