From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755194Ab2HNCBP (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Aug 2012 22:01:15 -0400 Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]:58518 "EHLO out5-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755146Ab2HNCBN (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Aug 2012 22:01:13 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: 1rTzVg8sR+JtZEOc8DfEuPWhUdLZyM4Bq3UwInNmWOm/ 1344909672 Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:01:11 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Ryan Mallon Cc: Cruz Julian Bishop , swetland@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] Fixes a potential bug in android/logger.c Message-ID: <20120814020111.GB26758@kroah.com> References: <1343796860-7025-1-git-send-email-cruzjbishop@gmail.com> <1343796860-7025-6-git-send-email-cruzjbishop@gmail.com> <5019C0D4.5010403@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5019C0D4.5010403@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 09:50:44AM +1000, Ryan Mallon wrote: > On 01/08/12 14:54, Cruz Julian Bishop wrote: > > Previously, when calling is_between(a, b, c), the calculation was wrong. > > It counted C as between A and B if C was equal to B, but not A. > > > > Example of this are: > > > > is_between(1, 10, 10) = 1 (Expected: 0) > > is_between(1, 10, 1) = 0 (Expected: 0) > > is_between(20, 10, 10) = 1 (Expected: 0) > > > > And so on and so forth. > > > > Obviously, ten is not a number between one and ten - only two to eight are, so I made this patch :) > > Is nine not a number between one and ten? :-p. > > The question with a patch like this is whether the function's > documentation, which says it returns 1 if a < c < b is wrong, or whether > the implementation, which does a < c <= b is wrong. If the documentation > is wrong, and something is relying on the current implementation, then > this patch might actually break things. I agree, which is correct? I'd stick with the code for now, care to fix the comment instead? greg k-h