Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S937737AbdLRR50 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:57:26 -0500
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:42452 "EHLO
        merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S934189AbdLRR5W (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:57:22 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix parse_args cycle limit check.
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Michal_Such=c3=a1nek?= <msuchanek@suse.de>
Cc: Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ankit Kumar <ankit@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mahesh J Salgaonkar <mahesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20171215214702.7c7afba1@kitsune.suse.cz>
 <20171215214149.3692-1-msuchanek@suse.de>
 <12296c9b-d215-20d4-843e-4c9c9c06f0be@infradead.org>
 <20171218183413.53358649@kitsune.suse.cz>
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Message-ID: <0fd14d20-ae3a-07d9-ee73-fe08ee9af770@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 09:57:17 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171218183413.53358649@kitsune.suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 986
Lines: 28

On 12/18/2017 09:34 AM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 15:49:09 -0800
> Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 12/15/2017 01:41 PM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>>> Actually args are supposed to be renamed to next so both and args
>>> hold the previous argument so both can be passed to the callback.
>>> This additionla patch  
>>
>>                                                                 additional
>>
>>> should fix up the rename.  
>>
>> Would you try rewriting the first sentence, please? I don't get it.
> 
> Ok, I guess this should be clarified. For the original patch and the
> fixup squashed together this is what the patch is supposed to do:
> 
> This patch adds variable for tracking the parameter which is currently
> being processed. There is "args" variable which tracks the parameter
> which will be processed next so this patch adds "next" variable to
> track that and uses "args" to track the current argument.

OK, thanks.


-- 
~Randy