Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266495AbUALWMr (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:12:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266521AbUALWMr (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:12:47 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:47787 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266495AbUALWMo (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:12:44 -0500 Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:13:50 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Jesper Juhl Cc: mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH(s)][RFC] variable size and signedness issues in ldt.c - potential problem? Message-Id: <20040112141350.085d32dc.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: References: <8A43C34093B3D5119F7D0004AC56F4BC074AFBC9@difpst1a.dif.dk> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i586-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1616 Lines: 60 Jesper Juhl wrote: > > > > > > -static int read_ldt(void __user * ptr, unsigned long bytecount) > > +static int read_ldt(void __user *ptr, unsigned long bytecount) > > { > > int err, i; > > unsigned long size; > > + unsigned long bytes; > > struct mm_struct * mm = current->mm; > > > > if (!mm->context.size) > > @@ -144,7 +145,7 @@ static int read_ldt(void __user * ptr, u > > __flush_tlb_global(); > > > > for (i = 0; i < size; i += PAGE_SIZE) { > > - int nr = i / PAGE_SIZE, bytes; > > + int nr = i / PAGE_SIZE; > > char *kaddr = kmap(mm->context.ldt_pages[nr]); > > > > bytes = size - i; > > There is no additional overhead with the original code and it has the advantage that the scope of `bytes' covers the minimum amount of code. I see no need to change this. Well. There is a little bit of overhead of the code does: foo() { ... { int i; ... } ... { int i; ... } ... } because the compiler (some versions, at least) will use eight bytes of stack rather than four. But this is rarely a problem. > After creating the initial cleanup patch I've noticed several more > instances of this 'bad style'. If there's any interrest in cleaning them > up I'll be happy to create a patch. Is this wanted? I'd say that this and the whitespace adjustments are far too trivial to be raising patches at this time. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/