From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755883AbaIKQZr (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Sep 2014 12:25:47 -0400 Received: from ducie-dc1.codethink.co.uk ([185.25.241.215]:51194 "EHLO ducie-dc1.codethink.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751091AbaIKQZp (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Sep 2014 12:25:45 -0400 Message-ID: <5411CD05.6050705@codethink.co.uk> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 17:25:41 +0100 From: Rob Jones User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Al Viro CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@codethink.co.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: replace int param with size_t for seq_open_private() References: <1409577428-16148-1-git-send-email-rob.jones@codethink.co.uk> <20140901153637.GI7996@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20140901153637.GI7996@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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) > > > It is a horrible limitation to impose, indeed. Why, a lousy > 2 gigabytes per line in procfs file - that's intolerable... > > > 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. I would like the patch to be considered for inclusion, it costs nothing and could avoid a future problem coming up to bite us in the bum. -- Rob Jones Codethink Ltd mailto:rob.jones@codethink.co.uk tel:+44 161 236 5575