Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHk-=wgrdOm8RwO+u8bydrbgs0wXJV_9mBYAtzX9d9hEY7a25A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wiHvdgbLxayyCsRU45JnKCZkCOpEJPfOvE3eYCnGjVcSA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230429003822.n3mglslg666j3npp@box.shutemov.name> <641a9348-a052-6bb5-e6c7-64acb6405328@intel.com>
 <CAHk-=wgnGoj8qZg3SRh1Z1-mU=b3ryydXZykUuarnrAn6LuHBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wgN=GY2A0htYQQRmPaLCorWnFatY_XO0X2w_m9xXQDcPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <f5983c42-82a5-1cd8-c717-67bfd72377dc@intel.com> <CAHk-=wgpOqujY210W9-KJPEfD42W_bvUdLwF-PAvyxJQ92tzDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wj7q6Ng5uemZtrDnhtcfrgkzX5Z18eKZj94FY5d2quP6A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wgokAgkTVpEHM7c8oP9mca5s21RcxksF8h3FwWFJbCu3w@mail.gmail.com> <20230503190147.GA1719388@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20230503190147.GA1719388@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 3 May 2023 12:19:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjwUEXwQqjbEnT2oKB4W7psF5rXuZWe9=y-uTr1vohspA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/mm for 6.4
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 12:02=E2=80=AFPM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.or=
g> wrote:
>
> I suppose that's a very long winded way of saying, that yes, ofcourse 0
> is a positive number :-)

Well, I do consider it as such, but I guess I took all my math classes
when people still considered negative, zero and positive to be three
disjoint sets, and 'non-negative' was required for rigor.

Some googling around says that a lot of people still think that, and
that it might even be language-specific.

I think the commit commentary about "ok, strictly non-negative" might
still be relevant. At least to some people, and at least for
sticklers.

Also, I do consider 0 to be part of =E2=84=95, although I wouldn't consider
that to be an argument about "positive" at all.

The argument for 0 in =E2=84=95 would be that without it, you don't have an
identity element for addition, which would arguably make natural
numbers kind of broken as a set.

            Linus