Re: [PATCH] fs/fcntl.c : don't test unsigned value for less than zero

On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 12:29:08PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > I think Linux only complained if we're using some typedef that actually
> > may be signed.  For fcntl that 'arg' argument is unsigned and that's hardcoded
> > in the ABI.  So the check doesn't make sense at all.
> 
> No, it was exactly this patch:
> http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0401.0/1816.html

Hmm.  Looks I absolutely disagree with Linus on this one ;-)

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] fs/fcntl.c : don't test unsigned value for less than zero
  - From: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>

References:
- [PATCH] fs/fcntl.c : don't test unsigned value for less than zero
  - From: Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] fs/fcntl.c : don't test unsigned value for less than zero
  - From: Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] fs/fcntl.c : don't test unsigned value for less than zero
  - From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] fs/fcntl.c : don't test unsigned value for less than zero
  - From: Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] fs/fcntl.c : don't test unsigned value for less than zero
Next by Date: where is current kernel ?
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] fs/fcntl.c : don't test unsigned value for less than zero
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] fs/fcntl.c : don't test unsigned value for less than zero
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Kernel Newbies] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Stuff] [Gimp] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Video 4 Linux] [Linux for the blind] [Linux Resources]