From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8C4C20B0F; Sat, 24 Aug 2024 18:03:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724522605; cv=none; b=QRYdrmJjbdzxvg4RKRvLRgmDLKii2k01vdcSr7YY6VNd5/pFn9zTf7Tt7Wxi0jcUr06tbJg5mtW7mpc/hUJ6UN7726nvtbYxISnH9N55O/tD7qu0Pn7a7QMKppuopxwe8tSmpzRB1cAGf0GT53wUP5kAta7L/Y0L6h3Ui+57DpI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724522605; c=relaxed/simple; bh=RFmHCUIsqlb05LzxYhXpFiVUrQMsqddPLjxKmpoiTzU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=reUVzzlqkX9DZB++7E/7AsNrII3ZuM+RiaEI5OyGPnohGsMBvOvMoDw06bEnij/4IvLHavy/C1E24/fAFZCQAeVxj4g3YTZK0MNwQFZrzetI7ybzEBVHOxv6Ai3LUIMy8TqMKJ38iCEsXNq6rz3H3scGiTeI4X2hR+LSiUkzszo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=VwEKT7GY; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="VwEKT7GY" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B22C4C32781; Sat, 24 Aug 2024 18:03:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1724522604; bh=RFmHCUIsqlb05LzxYhXpFiVUrQMsqddPLjxKmpoiTzU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=VwEKT7GYEyM5O28duV16IGtZ/0bTQk5TOj8dlaU/LiSG1/7DTRY6OPgTwcJDOWw4F 2SvmW8D/f1Fg2SsQKobDZYa63ofNNu0FXe1/cf2Q5NaSG5CVJTH8L69GbJlZ36hd+g bQBEQunlsXQm9Qi4Wdtvgy5dKYFyOGqvx/yZZZZoqYy0ks5GVK/IJNagGTE58UZLsZ zADAFaq/3c48Iht3dG0Uj0a85Dp7JqVdQZghu7hbO+qQ0TDSSaWO73OOGBtS/Y0fXm 66YTevEkNgtY5A9AOC/DUakCBEcBTW/eamPdGSSlWsXAbMDkruYDSHexEUMLGg4v65 SBlMDpa4IzBGQ== Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 19:03:16 +0100 From: Simon Horman To: Li Zetao Cc: davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, marcel@holtmann.org, johan.hedberg@gmail.com, luiz.dentz@gmail.com, idryomov@gmail.com, xiubli@redhat.com, dsahern@kernel.org, trondmy@kernel.org, anna@kernel.org, chuck.lever@oracle.com, jlayton@kernel.org, neilb@suse.de, okorniev@redhat.com, Dai.Ngo@oracle.com, tom@talpey.com, jmaloy@redhat.com, ying.xue@windriver.com, linux@treblig.org, jacob.e.keller@intel.com, willemb@google.com, kuniyu@amazon.com, wuyun.abel@bytedance.com, quic_abchauha@quicinc.com, gouhao@uniontech.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 7/8] tipc: use min() to simplify the code Message-ID: <20240824180316.GP2164@kernel.org> References: <20240822133908.1042240-1-lizetao1@huawei.com> <20240822133908.1042240-8-lizetao1@huawei.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240822133908.1042240-8-lizetao1@huawei.com> On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 09:39:07PM +0800, Li Zetao wrote: > When calculating size of own domain based on number of peers, the result > should be less than MAX_MON_DOMAIN, so using min() here is very semantic. > > Signed-off-by: Li Zetao > --- > net/tipc/monitor.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/net/tipc/monitor.c b/net/tipc/monitor.c > index 77a3d016cade..e2f19627e43d 100644 > --- a/net/tipc/monitor.c > +++ b/net/tipc/monitor.c > @@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ static int dom_size(int peers) > > while ((i * i) < peers) > i++; > - return i < MAX_MON_DOMAIN ? i : MAX_MON_DOMAIN; > + return min(i, MAX_MON_DOMAIN); > } Perhaps this whole function is open coding something, but if so I couldn't find it. In any case this looks safe to me as i is an unsigned int while MAX_MON_DOMAIN is 64 (also an unsigned int, I believe). And the code being replaced appears to be a min() operation in both form and function. Reviewed-by: Simon Horman > > static void map_set(u64 *up_map, int i, unsigned int v) > -- > 2.34.1 > >