From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:44293 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753930AbXDMAIW (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:08:22 -0400 Subject: RE: + expose-range-checking-functions-from-arch-specific.patchadded to -mm tree From: Rusty Russell In-Reply-To: <617E1C2C70743745A92448908E030B2A0157430D@scsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <617E1C2C70743745A92448908E030B2A0157430D@scsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:08:03 +1000 Message-Id: <1176422883.14322.166.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Luck, Tony" Cc: Andrew Morton , David Howells , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, randy.dunlap@oracle.com List-ID: On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 09:05 -0700, Luck, Tony wrote: > > Actually, I think it's brilliantly documented. Defining base as the > > first valid value and limit as the first invalid value makes it pretty > > clear, IMHO. > > "first invalid value" is hard to express if the range you > want to check includes the largest value for the type > you are using. Either "limit" needs to be the largest > allowable value, or you should stick to "base,len". Hi Tony! Sure. But to be pedantic, that's not a question of documentation: the documentation made it pretty clear that this expression was not possible. Nonetheless, I agree that base+len has merit over start & end. Cheers, Rusty.