Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 15 Mar 2019 21:06:14 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com>,
        Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>,
        Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] lib/list_sort: Simplify and remove
 MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS
Message-ID: <20190315190614.GH9224@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <cover.1552097842.git.lkml@sdf.org>
 <dd447448384883bd42c41f0de6a83430b6435dc1.1552097842.git.lkml@sdf.org>
 <20190314091041.GU9224@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <201903150433.x2F4X9oT024601@sdf.org>
 <CAMuHMdVF6pQ_-vidvtAyacOHw8WsJp4esu7o7o9DoR_GLahnzA@mail.gmail.com>
 <201903151023.x2FANDVY013031@sdf.org>
 <CAMuHMdVgmb8eZ7bD+jye8DG7cQRywvVmwo_XNJ00f198pDcwxQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <201903151659.x2FGxi3R012970@sdf.org>
 <CAMuHMdV_Y8COyhExkf-rj1oC39iDyf3iPrN2FxH8tQnmpi6D3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <23331552675987@myt2-66bcb87429e6.qloud-c.yandex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <23331552675987@myt2-66bcb87429e6.qloud-c.yandex.net>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 09:53:07PM +0300, Andrey Abramov wrote:
> > I'm trying to present the case to spur discussion, but it realy is
> > a *question* I'm asking about whether to do that, not a suggestion
> > phrased as a question.
> 
> > If it's just x86_64, use size_t everywhere, and let them suffer, for not
> > being real 64-bit ;-)
> 
> But what is the problem of local typedef with a good and clear comment?

It makes harder to read and understand the code. One needs spend deciseconds /
seconds to catch instead of santiseconds of time.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko