From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org (gregkh@linuxfoundation.org)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 12:54:12 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 5/5] Lib: sort.h: replace int size with size_t size in
 the swap function
In-Reply-To: <20434561554015618@myt1-cd60b8ae9bb9.qloud-c.yandex.net>
References: <18626931553963861@sas1-b3ec53dbc12b.qloud-c.yandex.net>
 <20467491553964233@myt4-c0b480c282c8.qloud-c.yandex.net>
 <20190330183826.GB21828@kroah.com>
 <201903302015.x2UKFnSL003850@sdf.org>
 <20434561554015618@myt1-cd60b8ae9bb9.qloud-c.yandex.net>
List-ID: <linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org>
Message-ID: <20190331105412.GA9393@kroah.com>
To: linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org

On Sun, Mar 31, 2019@10:00:18AM +0300, Andrey Abramov wrote:
> 30.03.2019, 23:17, "George Spelvin" <lkml at sdf.org>:
> > On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 19:38:26 +0100 greh k-h wrote;
> >> ?On Sat, Mar 30, 2019@07:43:53PM +0300, Andrey Abramov wrote:
> >>> ?Replace int type with size_t type of the size argument
> >>> ?in the swap function, also affect all its dependencies.
> >>
> >> ?This says _what_ the patch does, but it gives no clue as to _why_ you
> >> ?are doing this. Neither did your 0/5 patch :(
> >>
> >> ?Why make this change? Nothing afterward depends on it from what I can
> >> ?tell, so why is it needed?
> >
> > It's just a minor cleanup, making things less surprising for future
> > programmers. As I wrote in a comment in my patches, using a signed type
> > for an object size is definitely a wart; ever since C89 it's expected
> > you'd use size_t for the purpose.
> >
> > The connection is that it's a natural consequence of doing a pass over
> > every call site.
> >
> > You're right it could be dropped from the series harmlessly, but it
> > comes from the same work. But it's all of *three* call sites in the kernel
> > which are affected. Surely that's not an unreasonable amount of churn
> > to clean up a wart?
> 
> George Spelvin is absolutely right: "It's just a minor cleanup, making
> things less surprising for future programmers."

Then document it.

> 31.03.2019, 00:51, "George Spelvin" <lkml at sdf.org>:
> > It was so obvious to me that I didn't question it, but you have a
> > good point and I'm sure Andrey can clarify. Thanks for the attention!
> 
> I thought that it is obvious enough (argument called "size" should be
> of type size_t in the 90% of cases).  Should I resend this patch with
> better explanation "why"?

Yes, "int" is a very nice variable for "size", you need to explain why
it is better to use size_t here please.

thanks,

greg k-h