Re: [PATCH] fs: replace int param with size_t for seq_open_private()

[Rob Jones <rob.jones@codethink.co.uk>]

On 12/09/14 15:16, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Rob Jones <rob.jones@codethink.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 01/09/14 16:36, Al Viro wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 02:17:08PM +0100, Rob Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>>    void *__seq_open_private(struct file *f, const struct seq_operations
>>>> *ops,
>>>> -               int psize)
>>>> +               size_t psize)
>>>
>>>
>>> <sarcasm>
>>> It is a horrible limitation to impose, indeed.  Why, a lousy
>>> 2 gigabytes per line in procfs file - that's intolerable...
>>> </sarcasm>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> OK, I know this is a trivial patch but I've gone away and thought about
>> it and done some reading to see what the rest of the world thinks about
>> using size_t vs unsigned int (signed int is an abomination in this
>> context regardless).
>>
>> I think Al's sarcasm is misplaced.
>>
>> The correct type to use here *is* size_t. It's about consistency and,
>> more importantly, it's about not making assumptions about the hardware
>> architecture. It's included in the language for very good reasons and
>> it seems to me to be risky to ignore those reasons.
>
> Please don't forget to patch all for loops to use size_t instead of int too.
>

Yes, I'm sure we've all read that argument too. Now try behaving like a 
grown up.

-- 
Rob Jones
Codethink Ltd
mailto:rob.jones@codethink.co.uk
tel:+44 161 236 5575