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]