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:   Wed, 25 Mar 2020 09:19:24 +0000
From:   Quentin Deslandes <quentin.deslandes@itdev.co.uk>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc:     Oscar Carter <oscar.carter@gmx.com>,
        Forest Bond <forest@alittletooquiet.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Malcolm Priestley <tvboxspy@gmail.com>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>,
        Gabriela Bittencourt <gabrielabittencourt00@gmail.com>,
        devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: vt6656: Use ARRAY_SIZE instead of hardcoded
 size
Message-ID: <20200325091924.GB15158@jiffies>
References: <20200318174015.7515-1-oscar.carter@gmx.com>
 <20200324095456.GA7693@jiffies>
 <20200324131830.GD4672@kadam>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200324131830.GD4672@kadam>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Received: from jiffies (5.151.93.48) by CWLP265CA0361.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:401:5e::13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2856.18 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 09:19:26 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [5.151.93.48]
X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: ca06baf0-51bc-4692-72fd-08d7d09d9d82
X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: DBBPR08MB4362:
X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: <DBBPR08MB436240F5EBE715B00D3DFE04B3CE0@DBBPR08MB4362.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
X-MS-Oob-TLC-OOBClassifiers: OLM:9508;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0353563E2B
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM;SFS:(10009020)(136003)(39830400003)(346002)(396003)(376002)(366004)(33656002)(186003)(2906002)(508600001)(1076003)(956004)(26005)(9576002)(6916009)(81156014)(16526019)(81166006)(9686003)(55016002)(8676002)(44832011)(316002)(86362001)(66476007)(54906003)(4744005)(6496006)(52116002)(66556008)(53546011)(66946007)(8936002)(4326008)(5660300002)(33716001);DIR:OUT;SFP:1101;SCL:1;SRVR:DBBPR08MB4362;H:DBBPR08MB4491.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com;FPR:;SPF:None;LANG:en;PTR:InfoNoRecords;
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: itdev.co.uk does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: 1+smiLD+mH8ggHQ0c8+3wkgs+p9qQa0DGEIEuaMRAo+a5b4JZxoTsj+kg1leVd+vgnOzKrXrc757O5DNNNeEDlgyuKXEYXKE/c68Gqbxb7veJLwpKDnlLeHhmkMThd4GxIE3ucs9PyLNkhvzTLpztPA2BN7xWOtS+VGMgACbEmLZd1Il0rvT3Xg7K/prLA91pUp/Ts8Q79cpG7RZSAC/5uWCmph0vvaZxfX7IqRhtHsoXEmPSnUhDc1J6k4hQ279s3BeLe89BnvH6vfltt/q02bhce+N9SnrE9kbz9EYvIpoyqgH0S/ydMXPpjEz5AWsUGEXaVzOlH6T1Pe3NQX35IWOBq/llUAjYNI4wpmWhau5kILLH1Xh2Fke3eW+4I8Sh8PqLJ36c7ofqF9iSGPRdtAJ1nxcI0c8G9mIfjosL/S9l6agL25/PbHjiZh+Q5KS
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData: R9hAToOI884s0MOABNE87qEJMvziYB21SnyqkG0bsTlNptwb976gOT6DHH2wdLH69QhSOuk178tDtOWzGrJbQKRs5zYtpZQoUD00QwGHUR+w4SoSJZ0JYcql938L37TwC8yBRuL7Q6N6oZm7zPUGqg==
X-OriginatorOrg: itdev.co.uk
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: ca06baf0-51bc-4692-72fd-08d7d09d9d82
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Mar 2020 09:19:26.8078
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 2d2930c4-2251-45b4-ad79-3582c5f41740
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: rJ2mypnKSfsyKH+S5DLYvBzUtUx6/rSmIdEVjRwHC8rtiNAnd0AUJkL5bXmxv9QFsS+3/PkLAQZPaU0u/rFmyCkmLnFLG2fs6bP/6eyb3Zw=
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DBBPR08MB4362
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 03/24/20 16:18:30, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> That's a bit over engineering something which is pretty trivial.
> Normally, we would just make the size a define instead of a magic number
> 14.

My bad, I meant "define", not "macro".

> If people change the size in the future (unlikely) and it causes a bug
> then they kind of deserve it because they need to ensure all the new
> stuff is initialized, right?  If they change it and it results in a
> buffer overflow then static checkers would complain.  If they changed it
> and it resulted in uninitialized data being used then it would be zero
> so that's okay.

I wasn't sure where I should stand on this, that's clearer now.

Thanks,
Quentin