On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 11:47:54 +0900 Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On (09/18/18 22:43), Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > First - switch to u64 size. > > > Second - check for NULL str. > > > > > I think I would switch it around. Check for NULL first, and then switch > > to u64. It was always an int, do we need to backport converting it to > > u64 to stable? The NULL check is a definite, the overflow of int > > shouldn't crash anything. > > Agreed. This order makes much more sense. Do you mind, tho, to have > "unsigned int size" in the first patch along with NULL str check? > Just to silent the checkpatch. > I guess that doesn't hurt. I'd personally would keep it separate (just fix what's broken), but it's such a slight change, I don't have any strong feelings about it. Thanks, -- Steve
